How did the universe come about?

Diamond7 said:

Nothing is by chance, but there are things too complicated to figure out.

Click to expand...

Of course. But not for God, who doesn't even need to figure anything out.

stevevw said:

Or it could be that what we see is just a reflection of something deeper and non material.

Romans 1:20, For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

If there is a God who created the universe then maybe the universe is just an expression of God. We intuit that as conscious beings belonging to something greater than the universe itself.

If there is a multiverse then it must have had a beginning. Lawrence Krauss thinks our universe came from nothing. A sort of nothingness that has always been there. But there was something in that nothingness which was the quantum vacuum. To say that this has always been there is more or less the same as saying God has always been there. So I think either way we end up at a point where we have to posit something as always being there.

Click to expand...

I agree, but there is a huge difference between speculating on a quantum vacuum (never mind to posit such a thing) —which is mere mechanical fact— as self-existent first cause, vs positing an omnipotent mind —a living being— as self-existent first cause.

Mark Quayle said:

I agree, but there is a huge difference between speculating on a quantum vacuum (never mind to posit such a thing) —which is mere mechanical fact— as self-existent first cause, vs positing an omnipotent mind —a living being— as self-existent first cause.

Click to expand...

Yes even a quantum void points to some Mind behind it.

stevevw said:

Yes even a quantum void points to some Mind behind it.

Click to expand...

What strikes me here, is that even that, if it is "science's final answer" (which I doubt it is) to explain existence, is in the end, a fabrication of the mind that refuses to give up and admit 'first cause with intent'. Even if there was a way beyond mere speculation, such as to prove it mathematically, without circular reasoning and without substitution of mathematical terms into mere assumptions, it still doesn't explain "beginning" nor "existence". Where did the principle of Quantum Void come from, even if it too is reality?

Mark Quayle said:

Of course. But not for God, who doesn't even need to figure anything out.

Click to expand...

God has impressed upon me many times that He is very exact and precise in everything. Just as the Universe is very exact and precise. Most of that for us is unconscious.

Mark Quayle said:

What strikes me here, is that even that, if it is "science's final answer" (which I doubt it is) to explain existence, is in the end, a fabrication of the mind that refuses to give up and admit 'first cause with intent'. Even if there was a way beyond mere speculation, such as to prove it mathematically, without circular reasoning and without substitution of mathematical terms into mere assumptions, it still doesn't explain "beginning" nor "existence". Where did the principle of Quantum Void come from, even if it too is reality?

Click to expand...

The quantum void or so called empty space is the most fundamental aspect of reality for the materialist conception through Quantum Field Theory. This has been extended to before the beginning of our universe to explain how our universe came about by a quantum fluctuations. But even that is something that needs explaining. The quantum vacuum still contains something (energy) even if its cancelled out. So where did this come from.

The multiverse is postulated or that our universe was born out of another universe which then needs explaining as this implies an infinite regression back to some beginning. Another idea is that the quantum void has always been there just like God has always been there which doesn't explain anything and is not science.

The void before the Big bang has no time and space so the science breaks down and all is speculation. I think this is where philosophy comes in and we cannot detach ourselves from this equation. Something beyond material reality or at least beyond naturalistic conceptions is implied.

What is interesting is that in all these conceptions at the fundamental level there are no particles but waves of energy. Some force in the universe that is responsible for creating material reality which seems to be beyond our ideas of space, time and matter.

As you point out just because we can come up with ideas and mathematical equation to try and account for fundamental reality it doesn't account for the fundamental nature of what is going on. It only describes the behavior. So what is this energy we find in the universe and beyond. Where did it come from.

Diamond7 said:

God has impressed upon me many times that He is very exact and precise in everything. Just as the Universe is very exact and precise. Most of that for us is unconscious.

Click to expand...

I think we do have knowledge of the exact or finely tuned universe through our conscious experience of the universe. There are aspects of the universe beyond our comprehension that we may never know. But we intuitively know that the universe and life is not some accident or limited to mindless matter.

The parameters for our universe to produce intelligent conscious life had to be set in the beginning of the universe rather than some accidental emergence. So there's a lot more in the birth of our universe than just explaining matter, but also the fact that it produced conscious beings who can contemplate these things. In some ways the universe is the way it is because it produced us and we can become aware of it.

ViaCrucis said:

Philosophical naturalism is a belief. So it could be called a kind of faith; but it's less a "faith in science" and more a belief in a kind of dogmatic naturalism--a belief about the nature of reality that is wholly contained within nature.

Click to expand...

I think its hard to detach philosophy from the science. I don't think there is any measurement of reality from a position of nowhere but rather its always a position from somewhere. That being the subject. Science works within a paradigm which contains assumptions about reality, beliefs, and criterion as to how science is applied. In some ways you could say its form of groupthink rather than an open and neutral position on reality.

ViaCrucis said:

Because one can take the position of methodological naturalism without holding to naturalism as a philosophy. For science to be science it requires methodological naturalism; otherwise "gasoline engines work because of pixies" would be a valid "science".

Click to expand...

I think the problem is the line between what is natural and supernatural is blurred. There are some obvious distinctions like God/s being supernatural. But what about consciousness for example, or transcendental phenomena. I don't think the line is clear in many cases. There is a lot of conflicting evidence especially in the social sciences and biology (evolution) that don't fit the naturalistic, material and reductionist view.

I also question whether someone can really take the MN position without there being inherent metaphysics. MN contains assumptions and one is that there is actually 'Matter' out there beyond our conscious Minds. That itself is not scientifically justified. It may be that objective reality is but a surface measure of a deeper more fundamental nature. In that case though science is very successful it is not reflecting fundamental reality and thus brings into question science itself.

ViaCrucis said:

That means science is limited to only addressing naturalistic things--observations and hypotheses and experimentation and theories, the scientific method. So science can't say "God did it", not because science requires a lack of belief in God or what God can do; but because that's not science. Science can only be used to explain what can be observed of the natural order within the natural order itself. Thus requiring methodological naturalism.

Click to expand...

But I think MN does say that there is no God or supernatural. It has to take that position so its inherent in the method. Thus to justify the scientists belief epistemically only that which can be scientifically verified counts (evidencialism). This is a metaphysical position because it is determining ontologically what counts as real or not.

I think science has become more dogmatic because the natural progression of science is that it will adopt philosophical aspects. This is seen in how any new discoveries today like the Higgs Boson (God particle) comes with philosophical claims about revealing a greater reality and a step closer to the "Theory of Everything". This is the result of resting on the laurels of past science success in the belief that science is revealing true reality. But this does not justify making metaphysical associations because the assumption of 'Matter' or even 'Fields' being fundamental reality because it is a priori and unjustified scientifically.

ViaCrucis said:

Philosophical naturalism is what takes that and argues that the entirety of reality must be contained within the natural.

Click to expand...

The problem I see is that for MN to be justified it has to argue that reality is only Naturalistic. To defend the scientific position one has to argue for that position to be the only epistemic truth. Otherwise it cannot be justified because if there is something beyond or excluded from its equations then the equations are suspect because science has not considered all that may be of influence or causal which may influence the observations and findings.

ViaCrucis said:

The Theist, however, can take methodological naturalism and recognize that it is itself an expression of the Divine will and work. God established nature to be the way it is, and science explores and observes and explains those observations. So science does not lead us to the answer of "God", God does provide motivation for many to do science--which is in a lot of ways exactly how modern science developed in the first place. Both in the Islamic and Christian worlds of the middle ages.

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

I agree and science can help us understand Gods creation in a more detailed way. The big difference of course is that for a Christian this just brings awe as to how amazing God is to have done this regardless of the method. But the naturalistic and material view will assume and look for a naturalistic answer regardless of what the evidence indicates and never think that there is anything but.

I think as mentioned above with social sciences and evolution there are some fundamental differences in how we will see nature work such as teleology and agency as opposed to reductive and deterministic processes. Perhaps this is the case with physics as well when it comes to consciousness. The beauty of taking the wider of what reality may be is that we can still fined scientific support if we just expand our assumptions about what is real and an influence in this world.

stevevw said:

The quantum void or so called empty space is the most fundamental aspect of reality for the materialist conception through Quantum Field Theory. This has been extended to before the beginning of our universe to explain how our universe came about by a quantum fluctuations. But even that is something that needs explaining. The quantum vacuum still contains something (energy) even if its cancelled out. So where did this come from.

Click to expand...

Agreed. And how did the separation of combined opposites occur? How does CHANGE occur? This is one of my fundamental questions, on a par with "how do particularities descend from homogeneity?"

stevevw said:

The multiverse is postulated or that our universe was born out of another universe which then needs explaining as this implies an infinite regression back to some beginning. Another idea is that the quantum void has always been there just like God has always been there which doesn't explain anything and is not science.

Click to expand...

Yes. The nasty seduction this (and other, supposedly 'self-existent', infinitely regressive systems) poses is that it presents in many of the same terms as theistic creation (first cause with intent) presents. What it lacks, though, is intent, (vs purely mechanistic system).

stevevw said:

The void before the Big bang has no time and space so the science breaks down and all is speculation. I think this is where philosophy comes in and we cannot detach ourselves from this equation. Something beyond material reality or at least beyond naturalistic conceptions is implied.

What is interesting is that in all these conceptions at the fundamental level there are no particles but waves of energy. Some force in the universe that is responsible for creating material reality which seems to be beyond our ideas of space, time and matter.

As you point out just because we can come up with ideas and mathematical equation to try and account for fundamental reality it doesn't account for the fundamental nature of what is going on. It only describes the behavior. So what is this energy we find in the universe and beyond. Where did it come from.

Click to expand...

It is seductive too, to attribute the quality, "self-existent cause", to mere effect, and to consider each system of facts as its own fact, separate from other systems. This tendency in our thinking begins to oppose the 'Simplicity of God', in the way that we consider his attributes as separate qualities from each other —but I digress.

Mark Quayle said:

Agreed. And how did the separation of combined opposites occur? How does CHANGE occur? This is one of my fundamental questions, on a par with "how do particularities descend from homogeneity?"

Click to expand...

Can you elaborate on this so I can understand better what you mean.

Mark Quayle said:

Yes. The nasty seduction this (and other, supposedly 'self-existent', infinitely regressive systems) poses is that it presents in many of the same terms as theistic creation (first cause with intent) presents. What it lacks, though, is intent, (vs purely mechanistic system).

Click to expand...

Intent implies a mind and awareness and this implies a subject. I think this is what is lacking in mechanistic and reductive view. Science was designed initially to be a separate area of investigation from the role of the subjective consciousness. So the subject was taken out of the equation which made it easier to do quantitative science. But people thought back then that subjective consciousness was also real and deserved attention as to determining the qualitative and transcendent aspect of reality.

But as time went by science has taken over and the subjects experiences and agency was totally excluded and seen as a by product of the mechanistic process. Behavior was all due to fundamental physical processes and belief, intention and agency were not causal as far as evolution and reality were concerned.

But this has led to many anomalies that seem to point to agency being a powerful way of altering reality. The choices we make, the way we place ourselves within the world, the way we interact with nature are all connected and influence each other. A more reciprocal and constructive view rather than being passive subjects acted upon by outside forces. We are now finding that we cannot separate the subject from the equation and that we can make a difference in the world.

I think this may be the case with physics as well. Many say that Mined and consciousness are fundamental based on interpretations of quantum mechanics. This also implies agency, intention, awareness and choice, how we experience the world being real and causal and not just irrational beliefs.

If this is the case then it makes sense that the universe itself is fundamentally of Mind. That what we perceive of the objective world is a quantified reflection of something deeper and transcendent. Its not the material world that makes it real but the concepts, the invisible laws and principles that govern things. Just like consciousness may be a real force in the world it may be that the universe itself was born out of a greater Mind being Gods invisible power that is seen from what is made.

I know some will think this is unreal in itself but the thing is from what I understand there is science that supports this idea. Maybe not God or a god but of Mind and consciousness being fundamental to reality. I think this is the way forward, a new paradigm which may answer some hard problems that the scientific materialist view are facing.

Mark Quayle said:

It is seductive too, to attribute the quality, "self-existent cause", to mere effect, and to consider each system of facts as its own fact, separate from other systems. This tendency in our thinking begins to oppose the 'Simplicity of God', in the way that we consider his attributes as separate qualities from each other —but I digress.

Click to expand...

That is why I think the idea of Mind and consciousness being fundamental is simple and unifying. The ancient mystics have been telling us this for millennia. It can't all be woo lol. The problem with the reductive mechanistic view is that you have to explain everything in cold, meaningless facts.

The experience of beauty or love is reduced to a 'thing' in itself, the firing of neurons and any experience is regarded as just a by product and of no real causal significance. You may think you have free will and can make a difference in the world but that's just what you have been programmed to think by deeper physical processes.

But our intuition tells us different, that we do and can make a difference in the world. We are part of the equation that makes things real and if we leave ourselves out then we will never understand what is going on and our place in the universe.

d taylor said:

-
​

Well actually it is never stated in The Bible God created a universe, but it is stated again and again like it is stated in Genesis 1:1 God created heaven and earth. Too bad christians have let science, infect their understanding of God's creation describe in The Bible.

Click to expand...

You quoted wrong, it says heavens

stevevw said:

Can you elaborate on this so I can understand better what you mean.

Click to expand...

You referred to energies cancelled out in the quantum vacuum.

It's one thing to say that within nothingness the potential exists for somethingness to happen, (eg. a positive and a negative universe, or on the micro scale, opposite quantum particles —whatever. Mathematically, it is valid to say 0 = 5 + 2 + -3 + -4 but neither math nor cosmology can tell us WHY 0 must have been consisted of THOSE numbers, (or any other particular combination equaling zero). We only suppose it is those particular numbers because we see the numbers —I.e. we think that the nothingness produced the universe and the particles we observe.)

It's quite another thing to claim (as I have heard) that nothingness is fundamentally unstable and MUST (sooner or later) produce somethingness. To say that the nothingness DID produce the universe and the particles we observe, begs for explanation: HOW? WHY? and, Why THIS universe, or those particular particles?

To appeal to randomness and chance to produce anything in particular is not only a desperate shortcut, it is logically self-contradictory. And, arriving at a mathematical statement to say so is merely descriptive of the notion, not proscriptive of HOW. In other words, it is circular to claim that the math says so.

stevevw said:

Intent implies a mind and awareness and this implies a subject. I think this is what is lacking in mechanistic and reductive view. Science was designed initially to be a separate area of investigation from the role of the subjective consciousness. So the subject was taken out of the equation which made it easier to do quantitative science. But people thought back then that subjective consciousness was also real and deserved attention as to determining the qualitative and transcendent aspect of reality.

But as time went by science has taken over and the subjects experiences and agency was totally excluded and seen as a by product of the mechanistic process. Behavior was all due to fundamental physical processes and belief, intention and agency were not causal as far as evolution and reality were concerned.

But this has led to many anomalies that seem to point to agency being a powerful way of altering reality. The choices we make, the way we place ourselves within the world, the way we interact with nature are all connected and influence each other. A more reciprocal and constructive view rather than being passive subjects acted upon by outside forces. We are now finding that we cannot separate the subject from the equation and that we can make a difference in the world.

I think this may be the case with physics as well. Many say that Mined and consciousness are fundamental based on interpretations of quantum mechanics. This also implies agency, intention, awareness and choice, how we experience the world being real and causal and not just irrational beliefs.

If this is the case then it makes sense that the universe itself is fundamentally of Mind. That what we perceive of the objective world is a quantified reflection of something deeper and transcendent. Its not the material world that makes it real but the concepts, the invisible laws and principles that govern things. Just like consciousness may be a real force in the world it may be that the universe itself was born out of a greater Mind being Gods invisible power that is seen from what is made.

I know some will think this is unreal in itself but the thing is from what I understand there is science that supports this idea. Maybe not God or a god but of Mind and consciousness being fundamental to reality. I think this is the way forward, a new paradigm which may answer some hard problems that the scientific materialist view are facing.

Click to expand...

I like that very much. Good thoughts, well expressed and organized. Here's some thoughts what you say there brought to mind:

From what I understand, there was once a sort of theism, where mechanistic cause-and-effect as we know it was only a way to look at things, but what was really going on was that the gods would change things to accommodate what we expected to happen, (or to counter what we expected, just for fun).

For a long time I have enjoyed the speculation that at the end of physics reductionism, the smallest, most fundamental, component of matter / energy, was something very physical of God himself, perhaps his Love. It would explain and define an awful lot of things, both Biblical facts, (eg, that God loves the whole world, and "...the rocks themselves would cry out!"), and scientific, (eg. facts appearing to behave according to our observation). I do believe that there is something to that notion, but that most likely, the truth is more both more compelling and stranger than even that.

It is rather humorous to me to consider the question: Does our observation cause the behavior of the the particles, or is it the other way around? Can there be any way to tell which causes which? As you may imagine, this question may apply to several strange statements and themes/doctrines in the Bible, such as, "...whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." and the theme of "already but not yet" of things —God having spoken the finished product into being, but we don't see it completed as yet.

stevevw said:

That is why I think the idea of Mind and consciousness being fundamental is simple and unifying. The ancient mystics have been telling us this for millennia. It can't all be woo lol. The problem with the reductive mechanistic view is that you have to explain everything in cold, meaningless facts.

The experience of beauty or love is reduced to a 'thing' in itself, the firing of neurons and any experience is regarded as just a by product and of no real causal significance. You may think you have free will and can make a difference in the world but that's just what you have been programmed to think by deeper physical processes.

But our intuition tells us different, that we do and can make a difference in the world. We are part of the equation that makes things real and if we leave ourselves out then we will never understand what is going on and our place in the universe.

Click to expand...

Aye, Matey, there's the rub! But there is more to it than some general mind or general consciousness. I think it is very specific in hierarchy, God first, then his creatures, all in their order. And all 'within' his mind, in some way. But notice that as the concept of time fades into the background in these considerations, the relevance of cause-and-effect does not.

The science community likes to make as though causation via observation is a new discovery, while it has for millennia been known or speculated on —perhaps even practiced as a matter of course or mindset. (Though I have to say, I reject the theories outright, (even if secretly I think "there is a small kernel of truth to the notion"), that what Christ intended for us was to gain a sort of consciousness of faith that can accomplish the outrageous, via some altered state of mind with the eyeballs turned backwards in the head or something —the idea that comes to my mind, here, is the teaching that Adam naturally had this ability, and that Christ came down to earth for the purpose of restoring this ability in humanity.

One practical (though speculative) thought concerning these things: When we are tempted to think that "nobody sees (except God)" or that "my sin (or good deed) is only between me and God" there may be something to the notion that what we do and/or think fundamentally alters our local environment, and perhaps even alters the universe —even the mode of existence itself— in some way.

This stuff opens up an encyclopedia full of thoughts, so I'll just stop here. But thanks for the fun discussion.

BeyondET said:

You quoted wrong, it says heavens

Click to expand...

The Hebrew word is shamayim
Strong's Concordance
shamayim: heaven, sky
Original Word: שָׁמַיִם
Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
Transliteration: shamayim
Phonetic Spelling: (shaw-mah'-yim)
Definition: heaven, sky

the universe came about because of the way sin affects our senses.

Even if there are other parallel universes, we are limited to perceiving the one we are currently in.

Since science is observational in nature, this is how the universe came about.

Tolworth John said:

But that is the problem. At somepoint there was nothing, no energy, no matter, no laws of science. So what caused things to exist?

To argue that matter has always existed means explaining how the finite can fit into the infinite.

Click to expand...

Exactly... but try to get an atheist to admit to that.

d taylor said:

-
​

Well actually it is never stated in The Bible God created a universe, but it is stated again and again like it is stated in Genesis 1:1 God created heaven and earth. Too bad christians have let science, infect their understanding of God's creation describe in The Bible.

Click to expand...

Sal Mercurio said:

This is the one question that changes everything, the game changer. Here's what I mean by that. If the Atheist answers and says "I don't know", than that Atheist has just confessed to being an Agnostic. If the Atheist answers and says "The purple people eater created it", than the Atheist has just confessed to being a Creationist, with the creator being the purple people eater. If the Atheist answers and says "Nobody created it", again confessing a creator named Nobody.

Here's the thing, there was never nothing. There was always something. Nothing can't produce something because it can't produce anything...it's nothing, with nothing in it to make something, otherwise, it wouldn't be called nothing, it would be called something. Thus GOD - from everlasting to everlasting.

The big bang doesn't work because - "nothing" can not produce an accident, even by accident. The big bang can not exist without the Elemental "LAWS" : formation, compression, combustion...etc. Who made the laws?

In the beginning GOD created the heavens and the earth. What a breath of fresh air knowing that while we were laying in the dust of the earth GOD administered mouth to mouth and we became alive with a purpose - to express the righteousness of God to the whole creation.

Romans 8:1 19
19 For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the children of God. Halleluiah!

Click to expand...

PLUS

It has been said God could not create what exist from nothing - I guess they never read Hawkins's theory that before the Big bang singularity nothing existed.

Now they're trying to change it ( new study) and say the Big bang wasn't the beginning of the universe.

Sheila Davis said:

Colossians 1:16-17 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and fo | New King James Version (NKJV

For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and fo

www.bible.com

Click to expand...

I am well familiar with the verses you posted from Colossians. Not sure of your point, without a comment from you stating the reasoning for your post.

​

d taylor said:

I am well familiar with the verses you posted from Colossians. Not sure of your point, without a comment from you stating the reasoning for your post.

​

Click to expand...

I apologize, yours was the first response I read with this particular post which you posted December the 22nd. If my memory is correct you said the Bible didn't state God created a universe but the heaven and the Earth.

In the scripture I gave tells us God created everything visible and unvisible.
Men's definition of universe is basically saying all things that we see.

Definition of heaven means basically the same thing and will cover things unseen when considering the abode place of God and angels.
/heaven-and-hell/what-is-heaven.html

And I just can't understand how the Bible doesn't say God created the universe in the English language even.

Sheila Davis said:

I apologize, yours was the first response I read with this particular post which you posted December the 22nd. If my memory is correct you said the Bible didn't state God created a universe but the heaven and the Earth.

In the scripture I gave tells us God created everything visible and unvisible.
Men's definition of universe is basically saying all things that we see.

Definition of UNIVERSE

the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated : cosmos: such as; a systematic whole held to arise by and persist through the direct intervention of divine power; the world of human experience… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Definition of heaven means basically the same thing and will cover things unseen when considering the abode place of God and angels.

Christianity - The Beliefs and History of Faith in Jesus Christ

Learn all about the beliefs, facts, history and origin of Christianity. Understand deeper what it means to have faith in Jesus Christ.

www.christianity.com

/heaven-and-hell/what-is-heaven.html

And I just can't understand how the Bible doesn't say God created the universe in the English language even.

Click to expand...

Yes but when the word universe is used, what science has stated is creation comes to mind in the 99% of people. Where the sun, moon and stars are million, billions trillion's of light years away.

But that is not what The Bible states is God's creation. It is plainly stated in Genesis chapter 1 that God separated waters from waters with a raqia (Hebrew) English translations dome, expanse,firmament.

That God placed the sun, moon and stars in the raqia He created to give light up on the earth. These created lights are created to give light to the earth, not to light up an outer space.