How did the universe come into existence?

[Ygrene Imref]

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".

Ah, thanks.

I don't think any entity except Christ knows the intricacies of how the universe exists - as in, how it maintains... assuming we are within a Christian sphere of hypothesis. We generally say God maintains the universe because He does... but we don't necessarily know all of the mechanisms. Even if we talk about relativity, field theory, string theory and topology it would still be marginal knowledge at best. If we are speaking philosophically, I think the closest answer to how the universe maintains would likely be a variation of "through all of us."

I think there are plenty of philosophical answers to the OP, specifically, concerning the primary point at which the universe/creation "began" to exist.

 

[Aman777]

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).

I don't post my "religious" convictions since they are "beliefs". I post God's Truth which AGREES in every way with every other discovered Truth. God's Holy Word IS literally true IF you have the proper interpretation.

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

My view AGREES with Science and History. Faith plus Fact equals God's Truth. Go ahead and try to refute (prove wrong) my view Scripturally, scientifically or historically and you will see that the ancient religious view of Genesis is what is wrong. When you read Genesis for what it says, it is the Truth in every way...literally. God Bless you

 

[ToddNotTodd]

My view AGREES with Science and History. Faith plus Fact equals God's Truth. Go ahead and try to refute (prove wrong) my view Scripturally, scientifically or historically and you will see that the ancient religious view of Genesis is what is wrong. When you read Genesis for what it says, it is the Truth in every way...literally. God Bless you

There's no need to refute your view, because it isn't evidence that a god exists.

 

[Aman777]

There's no need to refute your view, because it isn't evidence that a god exists.

Then please explain what Albert Einstein discovered thousands of years after God told us HOW He created and what energy was used. Gen 1:1 Hint: Coin

Also, tell us the difference between Humans (descendants of Adam) and the sons of God (prehistoric mankind). Chapter and verse please since today's science is ignorant of the difference.

Also, please tell us how many firmaments/heavens/universes were made by the 3rd Day. Gen 2:4

The answers are empirical (testable) evidence of God since NO ancient man, who lived more than 3k years ago, could have possibly written these scientific Facts, which have already been discovered, or will be soon. God is currently pouring out His Spirit of Truth upon ALL flesh including evolutionists, scientists and ALL other people whether they believe or NOT. God Bless you

Joe 2:28 and Act 2:17

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Then please explain what Albert Einstein discovered thousands of years after God told us HOW He created and what energy was used. Gen 1:1 Hint: Coin

Also, tell us the difference between Humans (descendants of Adam) and the sons of God (prehistoric mankind). Chapter and verse please since today's science is ignorant of the difference.

Also, please tell us how many firmaments/heavens/universes were made by the 3rd Day. Gen 2:4

The answers are empirical (testable) evidence of God since NO ancient man, who lived more than 3k years ago, could have possibly written these scientific Facts, which have already been discovered, or will be soon. God is currently pouring out His Spirit of Truth upon ALL flesh including evolutionists, scientists and ALL other people whether they believe or NOT. God Bless you

Joe 2:28 and Act 2:17

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.

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.

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.

 

[Peter1000]

"In the Beginning God..."

So I guess you vote for God. Thanks for the info. Stay tuned.

 

[zippy2006]

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

Then on what grounds do you prefer simplicity?

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

You accurately represent the modern interpretation of Occam's Razor as something relating to theory choice, but this raises a problem. You tried to apply the Razor in order to reject a theory in favor of a non-theory. You rejected the "God theory" in favor of no theory at all. But that has nothing to do with theory choice, and it is an analytic truth that any theory will posit more entities than the absence of a theory. So it seems that, even by modern standards, you haven't properly applied Occam's Razor.

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

Why not? There is a distinct possibility that God exists and created the universe, in which case identifying him as the proper cause would be progress in knowledge. The first step in any explanatory theory is identifying the entities responsible for the phenomenon; only in later steps is an explanation of the mechanism attempted. When we are dealing with entities like the entire universe small steps are big steps. In any case, there's no denying that it is a step.

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.

Then it seems that you do not perceive the reason God is posited as the cause of the universe. Things which begin to exist have a cause, and no material entity within the universe could give rise to the universe itself, therefore an immaterial entity which transcends the universe must have caused it, and this is commonly known by the term "God."

 

[Peter1000]

6) we are living in a simulated universe, created in something like a computer.
7) you dreamed it all, and one day will wake up to find you never existed!
8) Backward causation: Future creatures somehow caused the universe to start in such a way as to create themselves. (Sorta like Marty McFly got Chuck Berry to write Johnny be Good by having him hear the Johnny be Good that he had written.)

Personally I think #3, the multiverse, is the most likely.

Thank you for your thoughts. We will add to the list: It is all not real, we really do not exist.
1) the universe does not exist, it is not real, we are not real.
2) a random chance happening
3) an inevitable happening
4) a Superior Being that has the knowledge and the ability to create.
5) we don't know or understand how it started
6) the multiverse theory (eternally existing universes)

We are getting a larger list than I would have expected. Thank you.

 

[Peter1000]

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.

So if 1 and 2 are not how you think the universe came into existence, this is where I would like you to give me your ideas. Thank you.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

So if 1 and 2 are not how you think the universe came into existence, this is where I would like you to give me your ideas. Thank you.

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. )

 

[variant]

Then on what grounds do you prefer simplicity?

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.

You accurately represent the modern interpretation of Occam's Razor as something relating to theory choice, but this raises a problem. You tried to apply the Razor in order to reject a theory in favor of a non-theory. You rejected the "God theory" in favor of no theory at all. But that has nothing to do with theory choice, and it is an analytic truth that any theory will posit more entities than the absence of a theory. So it seems that, even by modern standards, you haven't properly applied Occam's Razor.

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.

Why not? There is a distinct possibility that God exists and created the universe, in which case identifying him as the proper cause would be progress in knowledge. The first step in any explanatory theory is identifying the entities responsible for the phenomenon; only in later steps is an explanation of the mechanism attempted. When we are dealing with entities like the entire universe small steps are big steps. In any case, there's no denying that it is a step.

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.

Then it seems that you do not perceive the reason God is posited as the cause of the universe. Things which begin to exist have a cause, and no material entity within the universe could give rise to the universe itself, therefore an immaterial entity which transcends the universe must have caused it, and this is commonly known by the term "God."

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.

 

[zippy2006]

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?

It's not tautological, it's adapted to the argument (which you haven't addressed).

The universe began to exist; everything which begins to exist has a cause; therefore the universe has a cause.

A part cannot explain or cause the whole; a part of the universe cannot cause the universe; therefore something which transcends the universe caused the universe.

So we arrive at an immaterial cause that transcends the universe. I guess we don't have to call it God if you really dislike that name. This obviously provides a measure of explanation via the syllogisms; to deny this is to arbitrarily define "explanation" as excluding certain kinds of causes.

 

[variant]

Ah, thanks.

I don't think any entity except Christ knows the intricacies of how the universe exists - as in, how it maintains... assuming we are within a Christian sphere of hypothesis. We generally say God maintains the universe because He does... but we don't necessarily know all of the mechanisms. Even if we talk about relativity, field theory, string theory and topology it would still be marginal knowledge at best. If we are speaking philosophically, I think the closest answer to how the universe maintains would likely be a variation of "through all of us."

I think there are plenty of philosophical answers to the OP, specifically, concerning the primary point at which the universe/creation "began" to exist.

Without a understanding of the HOW that is being asked of our scientist friends then "it just does" is as good an "explanation" as most religious ones, as the religions don't tell us how either.

They just posit a being that can do that.

 

[variant]

It's not tautological, it's adapted to the argument (which you haven't addressed).

The universe began to exist; everything which begins to exist has a cause; therefore the universe has a cause.

A part cannot explain or cause the whole; a part of the universe cannot cause the universe; therefore something which transcends the universe caused the universe.

So we arrive at an immaterial cause that transcends the universe. I guess we don't have to call it God if you really dislike that name. This obviously provides a measure of explanation via the syllogisms; to deny this is to arbitrarily define "explanation" as excluding certain kinds of causes.

The cosmological argument requires special pleading regardless of if there is a God at the end of it or not.

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]

The cosmological argument requires special pleading regardless of if there is a God at the end of it or not.

This is just special pleading on your part. You give no reason.

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.

Are you denying the premise that the universe began to exist? The Big Bang provides good evidence of a beginning of the universe.

 

[variant]

This is just special pleading on your part. You give no reason.

No the cosmological argument has special pleading right in it. Something has to not "begin to exist" like everything else. Why?

It's not a rule that applies to everything.

Are you denying the premise that the universe began to exist? The Big Bang provides good evidence of a beginning of the universe.

The Big Bang shows us there was at least one beginning to this universe.

The question is why and how. Simply defining God as the thing that does things like that doesn't help

 

[zippy2006]

Something has to not "begin to exist" like everything else.

I see no reason why this is necessary for the Kalam argument. It is neither an explicit or implicit premise.

It's not a rule that applies to everything.

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

The Big Bang shows us there was at least one beginning to this universe.

The question is why and how. Simply defining God as the thing that does things like that doesn't help

What does that even mean? "Doesn't help"? I gave an argument for why there exists an immaterial being which transcends the universe. If you disagree, then feel free to criticize that argument.

 

[variant]

I see no reason why this is necessary for the Kalam argument. It is neither an explicit or implicit premise.

It is the conclusion. It's hard to have an argument that doesn't have one.

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

Well I am an avowed non-expert in how universes "begin to exist" meaning I am more honest about it than the people making the argument.

What does that even mean? "Doesn't help"? I gave an argument for why there exists an immaterial being which transcends the universe. If you disagree, then feel free to criticize that argument.

No you gave an argument for at least one thing that doesn't require something else to "begin to exist". You have no idea what it would be or if the universe itself doesn't qualify, or anything else.

Further we don't know how universes "begin to exist" or what other entity's might be involved if they do. You've just defined "something transcendent" that fits the category which doesn't really tell us much of anything at all about whether Gods are necessary to start up universes.

You might as well say it was magic, same explanatory power.

 

[zippy2006]

It is the conclusion. It's hard to have an argument that doesn't have one.

I gave a version of the argument here and did not use that claim as a premise or a conclusion whatsoever.

Well I am an avowed non-expert in how universes "begin to exist" meaning I am more honest about it than the people making the argument.

I am not an expert either, but as you admitted, the big bang is a beginning. I don't see this as a controversial statement.

No you gave an argument for at least one thing that doesn't require something else to "begin to exist". You have no idea what it would be or if the universe itself doesn't qualify, or anything else.

No, I gave an argument for why there exists an immaterial being which transcends the universe. Feel free to go back and read the argument I gave. It says nothing at all about "one thing that doesn't require something else to 'begin to exst'"--that is a clear misrepresentation, one that you seem determined to introduce.

 

[variant]

I gave a version of the argument here and did not use that claim as a premise or a conclusion whatsoever.

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

You have decided to define it as a God.

Which is pretty vapid.

I am not an expert either, but as you admitted, the big bang is a beginning. I don't see this as a controversial statement.

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

No, I gave an argument for why there exists an immaterial being which transcends the universe. Feel free to go back and read the argument I gave. It says nothing at all about "one thing that doesn't require something else to 'begin to exst'"--that is a clear misrepresentation, one that you seem determined to introduce.

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

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. It like the rest of the universe requires an external explanation and something else exists as the thing that does not "begin to exist", which I guess you would have to call that God too (actually this is kind of funny, lets go with this). So how many transcendent beings do you think there are in this chain? Do you intend to worship and name each of them?

I suggest the following sequence:

God, Hod, Iod...
and end with Zod for maximum effect.

The conclusion of the cosmological argument is that there is at-least one thing that does not begin 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.

Feel free to worship such an abstraction to your hearts content. I wouldn't even call you a theist if you did.