How did the universe come into existence?

[ToddNotTodd]

If you think one of the premises is incorrect, then feel free to point it out.

Well, we can start by saying that neither premise has sufficient evidence to support it.

 

[zippy2006]

Is there or is there not by your argument, at least one required entity that does not "begin to exist".

No, such an entity is not required by the argument I gave.

You have decided to define it as a God.

Which is pretty vapid.

Clearly you dislike the idea of a God, but you seem unable to address the argument I gave.

A beginning and the beginning make all the difference in the universe.

Why? How does it affect the argument I gave?

If you don't understand your own argument that is fine with me.

It's interesting that someone so critical of theists projecting unaccepted definitions of atheists on atheists is at the same time intent on setting up a similar strawman. Can I make my own arguments? Is that okay with you? Or would you prefer to make the argument for me and then tell me why the argument you made is a bad one?

If you are really not arguing that God does not lack the quality "begins to exist", then you have argued for exactly no relevant things by positing it.

The only thing that's clear is that you're full of unrelated assertions and unwilling to address the actual argument given. The argument I gave prescinds from the question of whether the cause began to exist. Why is this so hard to understand?

The conclusion of the cosmological argument is that there is at-least one thing that does not benign to exist. The problem with this is that even if we knew enough to grant that (I don't believe we do) we still don't know what it is, how it operates or any of it's features.

Why do you think this would be a problem, not knowing "what it is"? The Kalam does not attempt to prove "what it is," only "that it is." The only "what" provided by the argument is "creator/cause." Such is an ignoratio elenchi, a failure to contradict the conclusion of the argument being contested.

 

[variant]

No, such an entity is not required by the argument I gave.

Then it doesn't help. We need an explanation for where our transcendent being came from.

Clearly you dislike the idea of a God, but you seem unable to address the argument I gave.

Tell it to Zod.

I feel like I'm doing fine.

Why? How does it affect the argument I gave?

Well if the big bang was merely a beginning then the universe did not necessarily begin to exist there.

It's interesting that someone so critical of theists projecting unaccepted definitions of atheists on atheists is at the same time intent on setting up a similar strawman. Can I make my own arguments? Is that okay with you? Or would you prefer to make the argument for me and then tell me why the argument you made is a bad one?

Well if it were YOUR argument rather than someone else's I might be nice enough to agree.

The problem here is that you don't get the obvious problems that the people who actually made your argument first understood. You seem to have missed WHY they made the argument as well.

If God requires a cause we are left with a chain of God's. So, instead of positing two mysterys you now have an infinity of unnecessarily abstract levels of causes.

I think at this point you need to talk to William of Occam again because he might find something wrong with an infinite number of unnecessarily posited Gods.

The only thing that's clear is that you're full of unrelated assertions and unwilling to address the actual argument given. The argument I gave prescinds from the question of whether the cause began to exist. Why is this so hard to understand?

Is there at least one thing that does not begin to exist then? Hmmmmmmmm??????

Sounds a little like what I was saying was the conclusion of the argument....

Is there or is there not by your argument, at least one required entity that does not "begin to exist".

Why yes, yes it was.

Why do you think this would be a problem, not knowing "what it is"? The Kalam does not attempt to prove "what it is," only "that it is." Such is an ignoratio elenchi, a failure to contradict the conclusion of the argument being contested.

I ALREADY UNDERSTAND THIS.

And I granted it for good measure to move on. IF the cosmological argument is true it concludes that "at least one thing doesn't begin to exist". Which still doesn't tell us anything about whether there are any Gods.

Defining the end of this argument as a God is about as exciting as the A in my previous statement.

To quote myself:

Since you don't really understand how universes "begin to exist" it's not much of an argument. Defining God as it's answer actually answers nothing.

Two questions:

How do things "begin to exist"

How do things that do not begin to exist exist?

 

[zippy2006]

Then it doesn't help. We need an explanation for where our transcendent being came from.

Do you realize how much time would be saved if you simply went back and read the argument I gave?

The argument concludes with the existence of something. Where that thing came from is another question.

Tell it to Zod.

I feel like I'm doing fine.

Seriously? All you've done is presented strawmen. Not once have you addressed the actual argument I gave.

Well if the big bang was merely a beginning then the universe did not necessarily begin to exist there.

According to the evidence we have the big bang was the beginning of the universe, but it need not be the absolute beginning of all creation.

Earlier I said that the conclusion of my argument, an immaterial being transcending the universe, is generally taken to be God. And it can be. But strictly speaking, I see no reason why this could not be a being below God, such as an angel.

The problem here is that you don't get the obvious problems that the people who actually made your argument first understood. You seem to have missed WHY they made the argument as well.

It doesn't really matter to me why someone else made a similar argument.

If God requires a cause we are left with a chain of God's. So, instead of positing two mysterys you now have an infinity of unnecessarily abstract levels of causes.

I didn't say the being requires a cause, I said the argument prescinds from that question. Answer it however you like--it doesn't affect the argument I gave.

Is there at least one thing that does not begin to exist then? Hmmmmmmmm??????

You can answer that question however you like and it won't affect my argument.

I ALREADY UNDERSTAND THIS.

THEN ADDRESS MY ARGUMENT! If you think it is unsound, then say why. If not, admit the conclusion of an immaterial being that transcends the universe.

And I granted it for good measure to move on. IF the cosmological argument is true it concludes that "at least one thing doesn't begin to exist".

You have an unsupported assumption: only God transcends the universe. That is dubious on a Christian cosmology.

Which still doesn't tell us anything about whether there are any Gods.

If an argument proves that an eternally existent being exists then it tells us that at least one thing with a very God-like attribute exists. (Again, my argument does not even do this)

Defining the end of this argument as a God is about as exciting as the A in my previous statement.

Define it however you like. Again, if you don't like the name "God," feel free to call it whatever you want.

Heck, I've mitigated my conclusion to the idea that an immaterial being which transcends the universe exists. No need to transgress your taboo about the word "God."

 

[Aman777]

You're missing the point.

All religions have adherents that claim that their holy books predict things that "could not have been known" by the people that wrote them. That doesn't, and in fact can't, mean that the gods of each of those religions exist.

Of course not...BUT....the Holy Spirit hid God's Truth in the future discoveries of Science in the last days before Jesus returns. This insured that only by Faith could one be saved UNTIL the last days when God's Spirit of Truth will be poured out upon ALL flesh, including unbelievers, scientists, and evolutionists.

Act 2:17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of My Spirit upon ALL flesh:

Can you tell us HOW God can get through to unbelievers or ALL flesh apart from Science? Faith plus Facts equals God's literal Truth, which is undeniable.

*** Further, in all of these cases, the claimant is making wild interpretations to the text that the passages don't actually say in order to shoe horn the text into something resembling the science. Case in point, Genesis doesn't even remotely begin to say anything about relativity unless you make giant leaps in logic.

I fooled you by not telling you about Genesis chapter one. It's the entire history of God's 6 Days of Creation including events at the end of the present 6th Day/Age, which is future to 2017. IOW, ALL of the rest of the Bible provides the details of the events of God's 6 Days of work and refers BACK to the outline of the entire Bible contained in Genesis chapter One.

One of the most important things about what Einstein discovered is the scientific fact that energy and matter are two sides of the same coin. God changed some of the energy in His world into matter in Gen 1:1. Jesus changed some of that matter back into energy, on the 3rd Day, Gen 2:4 which cooled and became our Cosmos.

*** Finally, and I've said this over and over, you can't get from something "predicted" in a book to an existent god, because you can't rule out the fact that what's in the book was just a guess, or poetry, or misinterpretation.

False since Gen 1:21 agrees with Science www.smithsonianmag.com/.../behold-luca-last-universal-common-ancestor-life-earth-... that ALL life came from Water.

Gen 1:8 and Gen 2:4 show that we live in a multiverse composed of at least 3 Heavens or universes. Want to see the first picture of another universe beyond ours?

Gen 6:4 shows that today's Humans were produced by the sons of God (prehistoric people) and Humans (descendants of Adam). It explains that evolution had some 6 Billion years and could produce only 1 million prehistoric people, with tiny brains. In the last 10k years, since the Ark arrived, God has produced almost 10 Billion Humans (descendants of Adam) with a mind like God's. History AGREES. That is an example of God's Truth. No guesses, poetry or misinterpretations. God Bless you

 

[variant]

Do you realize how much time would be saved if you simply went back and read the argument I gave?

The argument concludes with the existence of something. Where that thing came from is another question.

It doesn't matter. If the thing you are arguing for also begins to exist then you just have two entity's to explain instead of one.

Seriously? All you've done is presented strawmen. Not once have you addressed the actual argument I gave.

They aren't straw-men, they are the problem with the argument that caused you to butcher William Lane Craig's treatment of the Klaam cosmological argument.

If your idea is to suppose God as an explanation for the universe, then what you've actually argued for is at least one external cause of the universe, which explains little or nothing, the least of all, much of anything about the universe, how it begins and why or how it exists.

I can actually grant the entire thing and it still doesn't amount to anything like an explanation of any of those things.

According to the evidence we have the big bang was the beginning of the universe, but it need not be the absolute beginning of all creation.

Right, so, do we have evidence that any possible events leading up to the big bang have a beginning?

Earlier I said that the conclusion of my argument, an immaterial being transcending the universe, is generally taken to be God. And it can be. But strictly speaking, I see no reason why this could not be a being below God, such as an angel.

There is no reason it could not be anything that fits the single criterion you argued for.

And since you don't know either how universes begin to exist, or how things that do not begin to exist can exist, we know virtually nothing.

What we could claim to know here is that:

logically, if the universe begins to exist and that things that begin to exist are always caused, and that everything about and in the universe are also things that begin to exist, that there must be some external cause to the universe.

You know NOTHING beyond that (given each of those premises is true) other than there must of course be something that does not begin to exist (something you are not capable of having missed but for some reason don't want to admit to).

It doesn't really matter to me why someone else made a similar argument.

Well your argument might as well be a cut and paste version that tries to avoid the main problems but is clearly inferior.

I didn't say the being requires a cause, I said the argument prescinds from that question. Answer it however you like--it doesn't affect the argument I gave.

Your argument is for an external cause of the universe. It's not even an argument about God as external causes to the universe are free to be fairly mundane rather than transcendent.

THEN ADDRESS MY ARGUMENT! If you think it is unsound, then say why. If not, admit the conclusion of an immaterial being that transcends the universe.

I will not, as that is not what you have shown.

You have an unsupported assumption: only God transcends the universe. That is dubious on a Christian cosmology.

I haven't defined God, I have stated that you MUST argue for something that does not begin to exist if you wish to argue for transcendence.

Precedes the universe is not transcends the universe.

If an argument proves that an eternally existent being exists then it tells us that at least one thing with a very God-like attribute exists. (Again, my argument does not even do this)

No, it only shows that something doesn't begin to exist.

Define it however you like. Again, if you don't like the name "God," feel free to call it whatever you want.

I don't care to define things I clearly don't understand. You on the other hand...

Heck, I've mitigated my conclusion to the idea that an immaterial being which transcends the universe exists. No need to transgress your taboo about the word "God."

Yeah no, you haven't shown anything about the cause of the universe being "immaterial" or "transcendent", just external.

I will however, after reading this, admit my mistake, and express my deepest apologies for treating your argument as something that made one iota of sense.

I clearly gave you way too much credit, this argument is a dumpster fire.

 

[zippy2006]

It doesn't matter. If the thing you are arguing for also begins to exist then you just have two entity's to explain instead of one.

The point of my argument is to show that the universe entails the existence of an immaterial being that transcends the universe. The conclusion could entail a billion things and it wouldn't affect the soundness of that argument.

In this post I am just going to ignore all the parts that don't apply to my argument. I've entertained tangents for long enough.

logically, if the universe begins to exist and that things that begin to exist are always caused, and that everything about and in the universe are also things that begin to exist, that there must be some external cause to the universe.

You know NOTHING beyond that (given each of those premises is true) other than there must of course be something that does not begin to exist (something you are not capable of having missed but for some reason don't want to admit to).

We know that material and temporal existence began with the Big Bang, and thus that whatever caused it is immaterial and transcends the universe (i.e. it transcends materiality, temporality, and any other reality that arises from the Big Bang). If you want to add eternity to the cause, that is fine by me.

Your argument is for an external cause of the universe. It's not even an argument about God as external causes to the universe are free to be fairly mundane rather than transcendent.

I said it transcends the universe, and that follows necessarily from the argument.

I haven't defined God, I have stated that you MUST argue for something that does not begin to exist if you wish to argue for transcendence.

1) why does transcendence entail existing everlastingly?, and 2) I never argued for "transcendence," I argued for something which "transcends the universe."

Precedes the universe is not transcends the universe.

If something is the proper cause of the Big Bang, the universe, and everything in the universe, then it transcends the universe.

No, it only shows that something doesn't begin to exist.

As I said, I have no problem with you affirming such a conclusion. Be my guest!

I don't care to define things I clearly don't understand. You on the other hand...

Me neither. Saying God is the source of existence is not giving a proper definition of God. It is just ascribing an attribute to him.

Yeah no, you haven't shown anything about the cause of the universe being "immaterial" or "transcendent", just external.

If something is external to temporality and materiality and everything else which arises with the universe, and causes all these things, then it is immaterial and transcending the universe.

 

[variant]

The point of my argument is to show that the universe entails the existence of an immaterial being that transcends the universe. The conclusion could entail a billion things and it wouldn't affect the soundness of that argument.

Yeah but it would have to contain those two things at the very least which you haven't shown.

We know that material and temporal existence began with the Big Bang, and thus that whatever caused it is immaterial and transcends the universe (i.e. it transcends materiality, temporality, and any other reality that arises from the Big Bang). If you want to add eternity to the cause, that is fine by me.

We know nothing of the sort.

I said it transcends the universe, and that follows necessarily from the argument.

If and only if by that you mean it to be external to the universe.

I argued for something which "transcends the universe."

If and only if you mean that to mean "is external to the universe".

If something is the proper cause of the Big Bang, the universe, and everything in the universe, then it transcends the universe.

If the other premises are true and you mean "is external to the universe".

If something is external to temporality and materiality and everything else which arises with the universe, then it is immaterial and transcending the universe.

We don't know anything about that. It would be external to "the universe" but we would not know it's properties.

 

[zippy2006]

Yeah but it would have to contain those two things at the very least which you haven't shown.

No, it wouldn't.

Zippy: Here is my argument.
Variant: Yeah but if the thing that caused the universe also had a beginning then you have to explain the thing that caused it too!
Zippy: Well, no, the conclusion of my argument is that an immaterial being that transcends the universe exists. That's all I wanted to show: that it exists. Anything further than that is unrelated to my argument.​

We know nothing of the sort.

So you deny that the Big Bang caused temporality and materiality along with the universe? To quote Wikipedia:

In 1931 Lemaître went further and suggested that the evident expansion of the universe, if projected back in time, meant that the further in the past the smaller the universe was, until at some finite time in the past all the mass of the universe was concentrated into a single point, a "primeval atom" where and when the fabric of time and space came into existence.

"If the world has begun with a single quantum, the notions of space and time would altogether fail to have any meaning at the beginning; they would only begin to have a sensible meaning when the original quantum had been divided into a sufficient number of quanta. If this suggestion is correct, the beginning of the world happened a little before the beginning of space and time." (Lemaître)​

If the other premises are true and you mean "is external to the universe".

What is the alternative to the thesis that the cause transcends the universe? That it is bound by the universe? That it is bound by space and time? By the things which it existed without? Your theory reduces to an absurdity.

We don't know anything about that. It would be external to "the universe" but we would not know it's properties.

It certainly isn't limited or bound by anything involved in the universe, including time and space. That is what is meant when I say it transcends the universe.

Transcend -

1a : to rise above or go beyond the limits of
b : to triumph over the negative or restrictive aspects of
c : to be prior to, beyond, and above (the universe or material existence)​

 

[variant]

So you deny that the Big Bang caused temporality and materiality along with the universe?

I deny that we know what goes on externally to the universe.

I wouldn't deny that time and material start "in" the universe at the Big Bang.

That is beyond my pay grade, but physics gets mighty suspicious when you compress the entire universe into something where distance scales are on the order of plank lengths and time periods over plank times, re-arrange the fundamental forces and try to predict how they work themselves out.

What is the alternative to the thesis that the cause transcends the universe? That it is bound by the universe? That it is bound by space and time? By the things which it existed without? Your theory reduces to an absurdity.

My theory is that I know virtually nothing about "events that go on" externally to the post big bang universe.

You made an argument that there was at-least one cause to the universe that did not depend on the universe, so if we take that to imply that there is at least one thing that exists externally to the universe we are left with the fact that we don't know it's properties aside from that.

To start ruling out both time and material seems a bit premature. We think that matter and time are results of the big bang "in" the universe but what goes on outside or before are as much a mystery as the very early events in the universe and probably more so.

It would be hard for instance to rule out say potential energy for a universe about to reach it's minimum point of entropy.

It certainly isn't limited or bound by anything involved in the universe, including time and space. That is what is meant when I say it transcends the universe.

Transcend -

1a : to rise above or go beyond the limits of
b : to triumph over the negative or restrictive aspects of
c : to be prior to, beyond, and above (the universe or material existence)​

Well, that definition is less impressive if you simply mean "external to", and don't know the properties of the thing.

Something not in the universe is going to be not normal or outside of the limits of the universe by definition even if it is a tea cup.

There are plenty of things that could easily be described as "transcendent" about the physical universe itself at the beginning of it.

The universe would be immaterial (lacking matter) until well after the big bang. The prediction would be 380,000 years to form matter as we understand it.

 

[Non sequitur]

No, it wouldn't.

Zippy: Here is my argument.
Variant: Yeah but if the thing that caused the universe also had a beginning then you have to explain the thing that caused it too!
Zippy: Well, no, the conclusion of my argument is that an immaterial being that transcends the universe exists. That's all I wanted to show: that it exists. Anything further than that is unrelated to my argument.​

How did you substantiate that the universe began to exist? Can we just start arguments with baseless assertions, now?​

 

[variant]

How did you substantiate that the universe began to exist? Can we just start arguments with baseless assertions, now?​

I agreed to that to show the rest of the argument doesn't follow regardless.

It's perfectly fine if you would like to question the premises of the cosmological arguments.

 

[Non sequitur]

I agreed to that to show the rest of the argument doesn't follow regardless.

It's perfectly fine if you would like to question the premises of the cosmological arguments.

Thanks.

So... what was the purpose of that insular argument?

 

[variant]

Thanks.

So... what was the purpose of that insular argument?

Well, it's helpful if when you grant the entire argument in cosmological arguments and then show how the conclusions are essentially still quite meaningless.

I see a lot of cosmological arguments that have about as much meat in them as a vegan taco.

I also like to point out how religious folks like to nibble around the edges of where we really only barely understand things to interject their God's.

The fellow here seems to think something that could be proposed to exist as an external cause to the universe is a good candidate, and I am just sitting here pointing out that such a thing is so far beyond understanding that it ceases to function like real idea at all. It certainly can't explain any of the unexplained parts of the event we're talking about.

So, why do such ideas keep floating around?

I don't really know, but perhaps I can spare a few people down the line the trouble.

 

[Non sequitur]

Well, it's helpful if when you grant the entire argument in cosmological arguments and then show how the conclusions are essentially still quite meaningless.

I see a lot of cosmological arguments that have about as much meat in them as a vegan taco.

I also like to point out how religious folks like to nibble around the edges of where we really only barely understand things to interject their God's.

The fellow here seems to think something that could be proposed to exist as an external cause to the universe is a good candidate, and I am just sitting here pointing out that such a thing is so far beyond understanding that it ceases to function like real idea at all. It certainly can't explain any of the unexplained parts of the event we're talking about.

So, why do such ideas keep floating around?

I don't really know, but perhaps I can spare a few people down the line the trouble.

You sir/ma'am, have made it into my sig.


No idea. I thought that old canard died along time ago. I started to read the posts, but you have way more patience than I.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I am aware of only 2 possible answers to this question.

1) A random chance happening.
2) A Superior Being that had the knowledge to create.

The question is: Is there any other possible ways the universe could have come into existence besides the 2 ways that I have given above?

Thank you for your response.

If we get to include "possibilities" for which not one iota of evidence exists and which are pretty much unfalsifiable, then the amount of possibilities is endless and really only limited by your own imagination.

 

[Peter1000]

Well, I gave a possible third possibility in that it could have always existed.

I said that it doesn't necessitate a creator, but I believe there was a creator with the intelligence and will to create the entirety of creation - as opposed to an infinitely static universe (i.e. no net changes since time t < 0. )

The multiverse theory has a concept of always existed. So I have that on my latest list - see post #108. The static universe is a consideration, but science has pretty much proven that the universe is constantly changing and expanding.

 

[Peter1000]

In the circumstance where one might propose multiple entities with the same explanatory power as fewer.

No explanation is in fact preferable in this case to an explanation that only muddles the problem rather than explaining it.



No you misunderstand.

God isn't a theory, nor is it an explanation, it has no explanatory power, it can not be shown to be incorrect, It offers no observations that it predicts and no observations that it excludes. It does not enhance our understanding of the problem.

God is undefined in any observable way.

God can not be observed.

God can not be known.

As long as these are true God is undefined.

Thus God is not an explanation, for anything. That you wish to speak about the margins of our understanding matters little here. You can just as easily apply the non explanation explanation of God to the sunflower.



No the first step in an explanation is to have a set of clear definitions. Hypotheticals as an explanation require mechanisms or possible mechanisms that can then be observed.

Otherwise your hypotheticals remain hypothetical.



This is a tautological definition of God, It doesn't work.

I don't understand how the universe exist and it must exist somehow so I say that the A is the reason.

A therefore A.

Have I explained why the universe exists or that any version of A I put forward is better than any other?

We have exactly one premise in common and no explanations:

The universe exists.

So when you say A, do you mean 'a random chance happening?

 

[variant]

So when you say A, do you mean 'a random chance happening?

I do not.

How the universe "comes to be" is a particularly difficult subject without bounding ahead of ourselves and limiting the possibilitys according to our own desires and our own imaginations.

If you would like to play in a space more difficult than the early parts of the big bang where, the most brilliant people who have ever lived can't yet even develop math to describe it theoretically, be my guest.

It can only show you anything to the extent that you actually understand it though, that's the rub.

 

[Peter1000]

If we get to include "possibilities" for which not one iota of evidence exists and which are pretty much unfalsifiable, then the amount of possibilities is endless and really only limited by your own imagination.

Post #108 has 6 possible solutions to how the universe began to exist. Give me 1 or 2 of your best ideas. Thank you.