How did the universe come into existence?

[Aman777]

I disagree with the idea that a correct fact in a book implies that a god exists. Muslims claim that the Quran contains the scientific foreknowledge below. Do you believe the Quran proves that Allah is the true god?

Of course not. IF the only proof was that all living creatures came from water, I would agree...BUT...that's just the beginning. Here are some more:

God tells us He made at least THREE Heavens or boundaries of universes by the 3rd Day. He made the first heaven on the 2nd Day Gen 1:8 and He made other Heavens on the 3rd Day. Science is currently seeking to confirm this knowledge. God also tells us HOW to make prehistoric people into reasoning Humans. Now, in addition to the fact that you cannot explain Gen 1:21, please explain the Multiverse and How God produced 7 Billion Humans (descendants of Adam) on Planet Earth since Adam was NEVER on this Earth.

 

[Aman777]

So, did anyone actually explain how the universe exists in this thread or was it the usual?

Jesus made the present Universe on the 3rd Day some 13.8 Billion years ago. He changed some of the air, dust and water, God created on the 1st Day Gen 1:1-2 into Energy which cooled forming our physical Universe. To be more precise, it was late on the 3rd Day since the FIRST Stars lit up less than a Billion years later, on the 4th Day. Gen 1:16

 

[variant]

Jesus made the present Universe on the 3rd Day some 13.8 Billion years ago. He changed some of the air, dust and water, God created on the 1st Day Gen 1:1-2 into Energy which cooled forming our physical Universe. To be more precise, it was late on the 3rd Day since the FIRST Stars lit up less than a Billion years later, on the 4th Day. Gen 1:16

How did the universe come into existence?

See you've just added some technical jargon to the "god did it" idea.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

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.

Paradoxically, if it was always here. As in, full consideration of the idea that the universe as we know it has always existed - and is a prime of creation outside of time, space and any other perceived or real dimension.

That wouldn't necessarily require a creator, or imply randomness. It would beg a lot of other philosophical questions, though.

 

[Aman777]

How did the universe come into existence?

See you've just added some technical jargon to the "god did it" idea.

No, I just read what God told us in Genesis.

1. God tells us that He (Trinity) made the FIRST firmament which He called "Heaven" on the 2nd Day. Gen 1:8
2. God tells us that "Lord God" (YHWH/Jesus) made other HeavenS (Plural) on the 3rd Day. Gen 2:4

Take Adam's world and add it to the present world and then add the New Heaven and New Earth (third Heaven) of Rev 21:1 and you have a Multiverse. Jesus made our Heaven at the end of the 3rd Day since the first Stars lit up on the 4th. Gen 1:16

 

[Ygrene Imref]

The problem with the "God created it" explanation is that you have replaced one mystery - the existence of the universe - with another - the existence of God.

I am happy to agree that God created the universe, but it really doesn't lessen the overwhelming mystery.

It takes a long time for people to come to this conclusion, and even longer to accept that the "meaning of life" may be learning about and figuring out that mystery.

If you check out the angel names in either the canon, or the apocrypha, the whole host of their names add up to a collective description of God. Even the angels don't know God "inside and out."

I don't think the mystery is so... mysterious just to be a cosmic troll. On the contrary, I think if we don't naturally slow-trickle the meaning of this mystery of God - slowly and meticulously - would likely be spoiled in some way (fallen again, death, shame, etc.)

 

[variant]

No, I just read what God told us in Genesis.

1. God tells us that He (Trinity) made the FIRST firmament which He called "Heaven" on the 2nd Day. Gen 1:8
2. God tells us that "Lord God" (YHWH/Jesus) made other HeavenS (Plural) on the 3rd Day. Gen 2:4

Take Adam's world and add it to the present world and then add the New Heaven and New Earth (third Heaven) of Rev 21:1 and you have a Multiverse. Jesus made our Heaven at the end of the 3rd Day since the first Stars lit up on the 4th. Gen 1:16

Genesis says the earth comes before stars in the heavens in the first passage.

This would be backwards according to any observation of the natural universe you would like to make.

And again, it doesn't explain anything with respect to "how" there is a natural universe. You haven't the first clue how any of what you are proposing would work. So, you have an explanation that explains exactly zero events.

 

[Moral Orel]

The multiverse theory came about, I believe from Stephen Hawking, to counter the existence of God and the mathmatical probability that a universe could not come into existence with these special, fine-tuned qualities and characteristics by a random chance happening.

His answer to the existence of God the 0 probability of our universe, was to invent the multiverse theory.
His theory said: There are billions of billions of trillions of trillions of universes. And because there are so many universes, it is now not impossible that 1 of them just happened to have the special, fine-tuned qualities of a life giving universe.

No, the origin of the multiverse theory could probably be traced back to a guy named Everett Princeton. He had some calculations that kept coming out to different numbers, and instead of saying, "it's random which one will occur" he said, "maybe they all occurred". The multiverse isn't an answer to some theological problem, it came about from actual scientific calculations and observable evidence.

We could add this to our list. Multivere theory. But to a certain extent it belongs in the 'random chance happening' line, because all the billions of universes sprang up as random chance happenings. But because of the ageless nature of the multiverse

That's the neat thing about the multiverse, it fits a lot of your categories. The multiverse is eternal, this specific universe the way it is is random, but there being at least one universe at all is inevitable.

 

[St_Worm2]

Well when I said explanation there I meant the how, and "God did it" doesn't really explain anything because you don't understand how God would operate.
God is a proposed mysterious entity so you are left with two mysteries (how the universe was created by God, and how God works) instead of one (how is there a universe).
Then you call William of Occam and demand your money back.

Or you choose to listen to what Occam actually teaches

 

[variant]

Or you choose to listen to what Occam actually teaches

That's why I told you to demand your money back.

Occam is one of those funny people in history who couldn't take his own principle to heart for, of course, religious reasons.

And, I might not be being very fair because of course he HAD to say that too, as they cut peoples heads off if they didn't at the time.

There isn't a reason for you to have the same stumbling block.

The simpler explanation is to be favored, so, which is the simpler explanation?

One mystery or two?

Now I of course take the idea that one is less than two, but maybe that's just me being daft.

 

[Non sequitur]

It is a reasonable answer, given the topic.

Tell me how many ways you think it is possible for the universe to come into existence. For you, I am going to list what we have at this point. Correct me it I am wrong:

1) random chance happening
2) an inevitable happening
3) a Superior Being with the knowledge and ability to create
4) we don't know how it happened

Add to the list, if you have another possibility. Thanks

I'd like to offer a re-do:

1) It always existed
2) Not 1

- 1,2 and 3 all deal with actions/"happenings"; no need to list every kind of possibility and sub catergories
- 4 isn't a possibility for it coming into existence

 

[zippy2006]

That's why I told you to demand your money back.

Occam is one of those funny people in history who couldn't take his own principle to heart for, of course, religious reasons.

And, I might not be being very fair because of course he HAD to say that too, as they cut peoples heads off if they didn't at the time.

There isn't a reason for you to have the same stumbling block.

The simpler explanation is to be favored, so, which is the simpler explanation?

One mystery or two?

Now I of course take the idea that one is less than two, but maybe that's just me being daft.

Occam's Razor, or the criterion of simplicity, has been in existence long before Occam reformulated it in the 14th century. It is always operated at an implicit level when formulating theories, but it is controversial as to whether it can be raised to the level of an actual principle. Edward Feser makes it the topic of a recent blogpost, noting that the actual correlation of simplicity with truth became controversial once moderns rejected classical metaphysics. In fact it is not at all clear why a skeptic such as yourself would think that simplicity and truth are correlated.

Appealing to the criterion as a principle as you have done is likely to be faulty unless it is accompanied by a thorough explanation of why the added explanatory power is insufficient to justify a new entity. Consider a 4 year-old who is determined to grow a sunflower. Sunflowers themselves constitute a great mystery for him, but he has tried to determine what is needed to produce one. At the beginning of his inquiry there is only one mystery: how the sunflower comes to be. At the end he posits the necessity of at least 4 different causes: a seed, soil, water, and sunlight. Being 4 years old, he knows next to nothing about any of these realities. According to your reasoning, he has multiplied his one mystery to five mysteries--the fifth being the mystery of how these elements combine to create a sunflower. If he followed your advice, he would abandon his theory and wash his hands of the whole project.

 

[Aman777]

Genesis says the earth comes before stars in the heavens in the first passage.

Of course it does. It also details the same event and explains that it's Adam's Earth which comes BEFORE the Stars. The outline of Genesis 1 shows that Adam's Earth was made the 3rd Day. Gen 1:10 Genesis 2:4 adds the detail that on that same 3rd Day, Lord God made other HeavenS (plural). Adam's Earth comes before the Stars of our Cosmos.

*** This would be backwards according to any observation of the natural universe you would like to make.

It's the beginning of the Multiverse. Don't you know that God made 3 Heavens? ll Cor 12:2 and Rev 21:1 speaks of the THIRD Heaven and the New Heaven and New Earth. Adam's Earth was totally destroyed in the flood. ll Peter 3:6 The present world will be burned. ll Peter 3:10 Three Heavens seems just right to me.

*** And again, it doesn't explain anything with respect to "how" there is a natural universe. You haven't the first clue how any of what you are proposing would work. So, you have an explanation that explains exactly zero events.

The "natural" universe, as you call it, was made at the end of the 3rd Day Gen 2:4 less than a Billion years AFTER the Big Bang. (Confirmed by Planck-ESA) The "natural" universe happened when Lord God (YHWH/Jesus) changed some of the air, dust and water, made in the beginning, into Energy, which cooled and made our "natural" world. IOW, We are Starstuff. God's Truth is the Truth in every way.

 

[St_Worm2]

That's why I told you to demand your money back.

Occam is one of those funny people in history who couldn't take his own principle to heart for, of course, religious reasons.

And, I might not be being very fair because of course he HAD to say that too, as they cut peoples heads off if they didn't at the time.

There isn't a reason for you to have the same stumbling block.

The simpler explanation is to be favored, so, which is the simpler explanation?

One mystery or two?

Now I of course take the idea that one is less than two, but maybe that's just me being daft.

Daft you are not being, Variant

As for not taking his own "principle to heart" however, I don't believe that's true. Occam never meant his principle, Lex Parsimoniae, to be understood 'apart' from any of the factors that qualified what he meant by it (and he clearly intended the Sacred Scriptures as one those qualifying/moderating factors).

Yours and His,
David

 

[variant]

I don't believe that's true. Occam never meant his principle, Lex Parsimoniae, to be understood 'apart' from any of the factors that qualified what he meant by it (and he clearly intended the Sacred Scriptures as one those qualifying/moderating factors).

Regardless, it works just fine outside his intentions for it.

When we apply it here for instance with two competing hypothetical scenarios for how there is a universe.

 

[variant]

Occam's Razor, or the criterion of simplicity, has been in existence long before Occam reformulated it in the 14th century. It is always operated at an implicit level when formulating theories, but it is controversial as to whether it can be raised to the level of an actual principle. Edward Feser makes it the topic of a recent blogpost, noting that the actual correlation of simplicity with truth became controversial once moderns rejected classical metaphysics. In fact it is not at all clear why a skeptic such as yourself would think that simplicity and truth are correlated.

I don't think simplicity and truth are directly correlated.

The idea is only applicable when choosing a preference between two hypothetical explanations and no other mitigating factors.

Appealing to the criterion as a principle as you have done is likely to be faulty unless it is accompanied by a thorough explanation of why the added explanatory power is insufficient to justify a new entity.

God doesn't add any new explanatory power. As I have pointed out numerous times, here and elsewhere.

 

[variant]

Consider a 4 year-old who is determined to grow a sunflower. Sunflowers themselves constitute a great mystery for him, but he has tried to determine what is needed to produce one. At the beginning of his inquiry there is only one mystery: how the sunflower comes to be. At the end he posits the necessity of at least 4 different causes: a seed, soil, water, and sunlight. Being 4 years old, he knows next to nothing about any of these realities. According to your reasoning, he has multiplied his one mystery to five mysteries--the fifth being the mystery of how these elements combine to create a sunflower. If he followed your advice, he would abandon his theory and wash his hands of the whole project.

No, he would, and should incorporate as many ideas as are necessary.

If he instead decided to "explain" the idea by saying that invisible magical beings that could not be detected, nor disproved were at large he might run into a wall of sorts.

Such an "explanation" however, is no explanation at all, and just adds another mystery, when he should be solving his problems by actually trying to understand how the sunflower operates.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

I don't think simplicity and truth are directly correlated.

The idea is only applicable when choosing a preference between two hypothetical explanations and no other mitigating factors.



God doesn't add any new explanatory power. As I have pointed out numerous times, here and elsewhere.

If you could give a sentence on your stance per this op, or direct me to a post/page/whatever (sorry, I am posting semi blind, as have all my other post been.)

I would like to respond to you, but I don't know your position beyond what you have responded to others.

 

[variant]

If you could give a sentence on your stance per this op, or direct me to a post/page/whatever (sorry, I am posting semi blind, as have all my other post been.)

I would like to respond to you, but I don't know your position beyond what you have responded to others.

I started here:

How did the universe come into existence?

My position is that I am skeptical that anyone has the answer to the question: "how does the universe exist".

 

[variant]

Of course it does. It also details the same event and explains that it's Adam's Earth which comes BEFORE the Stars. The outline of Genesis 1 shows that Adam's Earth was made the 3rd Day. Gen 1:10 Genesis 2:4 adds the detail that on that same 3rd Day, Lord God made other HeavenS (plural). Adam's Earth comes before the Stars of our Cosmos.

*** This would be backwards according to any observation of the natural universe you would like to make.

It's the beginning of the Multiverse. Don't you know that God made 3 Heavens? ll Cor 12:2 and Rev 21:1 speaks of the THIRD Heaven and the New Heaven and New Earth. Adam's Earth was totally destroyed in the flood. ll Peter 3:6 The present world will be burned. ll Peter 3:10 Three Heavens seems just right to me.

*** And again, it doesn't explain anything with respect to "how" there is a natural universe. You haven't the first clue how any of what you are proposing would work. So, you have an explanation that explains exactly zero events.

The "natural" universe, as you call it, was made at the end of the 3rd Day Gen 2:4 less than a Billion years AFTER the Big Bang. (Confirmed by Planck-ESA) The "natural" universe happened when Lord God (YHWH/Jesus) changed some of the air, dust and water, made in the beginning, into Energy, which cooled and made our "natural" world. IOW, We are Starstuff. God's Truth is the Truth in every way.

I honestly don't even know where to begin.

So, you're using one unfalsifiable hypothesis (multiple universes) to justify another one (your religious convictions in a literally true biblical interpretation).

Whatever you are doing here, it isn't what I would call an explanation.