Atheist Universe: Not Impossible

[PhilosophicalBluster]

... And to me, it seems, very probable.

BEFORE YOU READ:

I realize that this theory / hypothesis / concept / whatever is not going to be the end-all creationism vs. atheism debate. This is just an idea I found interesting and wanted to see what everybody here thought about it.

ON TO THE SUBJECT:

I just had this sort of thought bouncing around in my head, and I think I had an epiphany. That or my brain exploded. Okay, consider this:

Before the universe existed, there were no laws. Of anything. No physics, no logic, no nothing.

If such a blank nothingness existed without laws, literally anything could happen.

In the infinite amount of time that the nothingness existed, it is infinitely probable for anything and everything to be created. Since there is an infinite amount of time and no binding guidelines, literally every possibility must be fulfilled.

This includes the spontaneous creation of our universe.

----------------------


Put that in your pipe and smoke it, creationists.

 

[b&wpac4]

It is impossible to remove the possibility that God is behind everything. By the very nature of being something untestable, unseeable, unfalsifiable, God could exist and be behind the creation of everything, though whatever process God decided on.

I think that concept, however, that Genesis is a literal and factual account of the creation of the world really needs to go away because it doesn't add up.

 

[PhilosophicalBluster]

It is impossible to remove the possibility that God is behind everything. By the very nature of being something untestable, unseeable, unfalsifiable, God could exist and be behind the creation of everything, though whatever process God decided on.

Correct, it does not rule out G-d, but it does present an argument against the annoying creationists (who shall not be named due to forum rules) who say "Yadda yadda atheism is just 0 * 0 = 1 Derp Derp Derp". It's an alternative theory.

 

[b&wpac4]

Correct, it does not rule out G-d, but it does present an argument against the annoying creationists (who shall not be named due to forum rules) who say "Yadda yadda atheism is just 0 * 0 = 1 Derp Derp Derp". It's an alternative theory.

The problem is, they continually have to retreat as more is found out, or outright deny the science is there. Sounds a lot like the dark ages when some people found it important to continue to insist that the Earth was the center of the universe.

 

[PhilosophicalBluster]

Man, I want this to get some hits from the fundies. Intellect stagnates without opposition.

(Translation: Bump)

 

[HighwayMan]

... And to me, it seems, very probable.

BEFORE YOU READ:

I realize that this theory / hypothesis / concept / whatever is not going to be the end-all creationism vs. atheism debate. This is just an idea I found interesting and wanted to see what everybody here thought about it.

ON TO THE SUBJECT:

I just had this sort of thought bouncing around in my head, and I think I had an epiphany. That or my brain exploded. Okay, consider this:

Before the universe existed, there were no laws. Of anything. No physics, no logic, no nothing.

If such a blank nothingness existed without laws, literally anything[/I] could happen.

In the infinite amount of time that the nothingness existed, it is infinitely probable for anything and everything to be created. Since there is an infinite amount of time and no binding guidelines, literally every possibility must be fulfilled.

This includes the spontaneous creation of our universe.

----------------------


Put that in your pipe and smoke it, creationists.

But then that means there was some sort of energy/influence that caused things to happen in this lawless state.

I'd argue that literally nothing could happen. If things were ever in a state of utter non-existence, then they would still be this way now. If there is one certain law about our universe it's that everything has some sort of source.

 

[Chesterton]

I just had this sort of thought bouncing around in my head, and I think I had an epiphany. That or my brain exploded. Okay, consider this:
...

If such a blank nothingness existed without laws, literally anything could happen.

Definitely a brain explosion.

 

[PhilosophicalBluster]

But then that means there was some sort of energy/influence that caused things to happen in this lawless state.

I'd argue that literally nothing could happen. If things were ever in a state of utter non-existence, then they would still be this way now. If there is one certain law about our universe it's that everything has some sort of source.

But see, my argument is that if there is nothingness, to the highest (or lowest, depending on how you look at it) degree of nothingness. Literally NOTHING. If there is no universe, there are no laws to govern it. Nothing requires energy to happen, because the law that makes that requirement possible is not in existence. I cannot fully explain how much NOTHING I actually mean by NOTHING.

There is, in fact, so much NOTHING that there are no laws to govern the NOTHING and thus, given an infinite amount of time, anything and everything because of probability, HAS to happen.

 

[PhilosophicalBluster]

Definitely a brain explosion.

Then disprove it, oh brilliant philosopher.

 

[Jade Margery]

But then that means there was some sort of energy/influence that caused things to happen in this lawless state.

I'd argue that literally nothing could happen. If things were ever in a state of utter non-existence, then they would still be this way now. If there is one certain law about our universe it's that everything has some sort of source.

Hmmm. Now, I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the OP's premise, but I wonder about your last sentence. Why does everything need a source? Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed. So if, say, there is a set amount of energy in the universe... or rather of the universe, because matter is merely organized energy... what if all there is, is all there ever was? No beginning, no end. We humans have trouble conceptualising something like that because of the terminal nature of our lives, but the universe doesn't exist on human terms.

 

[HighwayMan]

But see, my argument is that if there is nothingness, to the highest (or lowest, depending on how you look at it) degree of nothingness. Literally NOTHING. If there is no universe, there are no laws to govern it. Nothing requires energy to happen, because the law that makes that requirement possible is not in existence. I cannot fully explain how much NOTHING I actually mean by NOTHING.

There is, in fact, so much NOTHING that there are no laws to govern the NOTHING and thus, given an infinite amount of time, anything and everything because of probability, HAS to happen.

lol. I kind of get it, but see that last part? If there is so much nothingness, then probability doesn't exist either. In fact, I don't think we can guess anything at all in such a scenario. Everything we know about the universe is through the laws we have figured out, if those get taken out then there is simply a big question mark and nothing else. It is akin to theorizing what an alternate universe would be like.

 

[HighwayMan]

Hmmm. Now, I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the OP's premise, but I wonder about your last sentence. Why does everything need a source? Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed. So if, say, there is a set amount of energy in the universe... or rather of the universe, because matter is merely organized energy... what if all there is, is all there ever was? No beginning, no end. We humans have trouble conceptualising something like that because of the terminal nature of our lives, but the universe doesn't exist on human terms.

Well that is certainly a possibility, but that's not what we're arguing about here. The question is if a complete nothingness is/was possible, where not even that energy existed to be transferred.

 

[Jade Margery]

Aw, must it be an argument? Could be a rational discussion, goodness knows those don't last long around here so we may as well savor it.

 

[HighwayMan]

Aw, must it be an argument? Could be a rational discussion, goodness knows those don't last long around here so we may as well savor it.

lol yes I mean a rational discussion, "argue" doesn't necessarily have to mean something negative.

 

[Axioma]

I should point out that time is a function of the universe, so you can't have one without the other.

 

[Mystman]

..

Put that in your pipe and smoke it, creationists.

Meh nice idea, but not very scientifically sound imho.

The correct argument against the "something from nothing!1!" crowd, that is 100% effective in convincing people who are actually trying to understand what you're saying, goes something like:

you: how can something come from nothing?
me: It can't. 'reality' has either existed forever, or is cyclical; the "something" is a product of some eternal or cyclical process/phenomenon.
you: but how can something exist forever!?!?
me: No idea. It's a concept a human mind can't grasp.
you: HA! So Christianity is true!
me: No, since the Christian God has the exact same problem of "how did it start". You're just postulating that by some intrinsic property, God has existed forever. Well, I can postulate the exact same thing for my unthinking colliding 11-dimensional brames (or whatever the current theory in string theory is..).

If reality has existed forever (or exists out of time etc etc), then we can logically conclude that something must have the property of existing forever, and being capable of producing further events. Those are the only properties of that "something" that we can conclude. There is no reason to think that this "something" is sentient. Or that it has powers beyond starting Big Bangs.

IF reality has existed forever, then adding "God" to the situation doesn't help. It just unnecessarily complicates the situation by inventing an all-powerful, all-knowing, timeless, all-loving entity, where a simple higher dimensional wave function is all that's needed. And the simplest explanation is the most likely to be true.

You can't just say "well God is allowed to be eternal, but your stupid wavefunction isn't!". You can't just say "well, you don't know everything, so you're wrong!1!1, ", even if your own lifeview has the exact same problem that you're attacking in someone else's view. You'll just have to accept that, yes, the concept of something existing for an eternity is a darned hard concept to understand. But no, inventing a "God" doesn't solve this problem; it only complicates it without good reason.

You: Oh. Wow.

(argh.. I've written this one before but in a better way.. but I can't find it in my post history -_-)

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Time and space are interconnected. So, technically, there is no "before" the universe - even if it had a definite beginning. Anything "elsewhere" or "elsewhen" is not a part of our space-time-continuity by default.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

The long and short of it is:

Just because we may not easily wrap our mind around the processes that would allow a stable universe to come into existence, it is not permissible to just explain it away with a simplistic myth like: "Invisible Uberman did it like a Watchmaker."

If anything, the admission of our relative ignorance on the topic should bring us to research more, to delve ever-deeper into the mysteries of the cosmos.
Religions provide simple answers to very difficult questions - and thus stifle the need to look for the real answers.

In my opinion, nothing could be more absurd than looking for answers to such riddles in the myths of Bronze Age cultures; and treating them as Absolute Truths that supersede and cancel out any evidence to the contrary is downright insane.

 

[Andreusz]

^^ Excellent post, Mystman.

 

[Chesterton]

Then disprove it, oh brilliant philosopher.

Just teasing, bro.

There is, in fact, so much NOTHING that there are no laws to govern the NOTHING and thus, given an infinite amount of time, anything and everything because of probability, HAS to happen.

You include the idea of probability in there, but probability has to be based on something, doesn't it? If there is nothing, then there is zero probability for anything.