Did the universe pop out of nowhere and nothing?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Did the universe pop out of nothing?
Can science even answer that if science is a matter of observation and measurement?

[Enki]

I don't know, do you? Is there such a state as nothing, anyway?

Science has posited such things as matter/anti-matter particles and the inherent instability of space. Look on the internet and find the latest research would be my advice.

I know you haven't mentioned a god in all this, but exactly the same two questions *could be asked about whichever creator god one cares to name, the only difference being that we have plenty of evidence that this universe exists, but none that I'm aware of that any god exists.

*although it could be said that it is a pointless line of questioning unless and until evidence of a god's existence  is forthcoming.

[Nearly Sane]

Did the universe pop out of nothing?
Can science even answer that if science is a matter of observation and measurement?

What is nowhere? What is nothing? Can nothing ever be?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't know, do you? Is there such a state as nothing, anyway?

Science has posited such things as matter/anti-matter particles and the inherent instability of space. Look on the internet and find the latest research would be my advice.

I know you haven't mentioned a god in all this, but exactly the same two questions *could be asked about whichever creator god one cares to name, the only difference being that we have plenty of evidence that this universe exists, but none that I'm aware of that any god exists.

*although it could be said that it is a pointless line of questioning unless and until evidence of a god's existence  is forthcoming.

Some think we can conceptualise something popping out of nothing but then again how would we know it didn't beam in from somewhere.

If we say something's been around for ever then that poses problems for science since it cannot be observed or measured.

So popping out of nothing or being eternal are non natural events.

If you argue that something is eternal you give up your right to criticise someone else for believing that something is eternal.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What is nowhere? What is nothing? Can nothing ever be?

Sorry to sound a bit flip but isn't nothing the absence of anything?

[Nearly Sane]

Sorry to sound a bit flip but isn't nothing the absence of anything?

What is that? If nothing were to exist then it would be something in which case it isn't nothing. To repeat, can nothing ever be?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I know you haven't mentioned a god in all this, but exactly the same two questions *could be asked about whichever creator god one cares to name, the only difference being that we have plenty of evidence that this universe exists, but none that I'm aware of that any god exists.

I haven't but you are free to detect a god in anything I subsequently say.

As far as I can see the universe was either created in other words that could merely mean it was contingent on something else that is eternal, It is eternal itself even though everything observed so far seems contingent or it popped out of nothing. It comes down to those three.

[Enki]

Response to Vlad's Post 3:

Some think we can conceptualise something popping out of nothing but then again how would we know it didn't beam in from somewhere.

All I can say about nothing is that it is the absence of something. I find it impossible to conceptualise nothing, I can only conceptualise something.

If we say something's been around for ever then that poses problems for science since it cannot be observed or measured.

One idea is that the universe goes through a continuous process of expansion and contraction. In theory, this could be ascertained and measured. I can't see why it would be a problem for science at all, especially as it has been proposed by scientists.

So popping out of nothing or being eternal are non natural events.

Assuming by 'natural' events you mean those that are investigable by science, why would you come to that conclusion? If either were true, why couldn't they be natural events/states which science has not yet discovered?

If you argue that something is eternal you give up your right to criticise someone else for believing that something is eternal.

Well that's obvious isn't it! However even if I believed that something is 'eternal' it would depend upon the exact nature of the 'eternal' that is proposed by this 'someone else'. Hence, I would reserve the right to criticise  about the nature of this 'eternity'.

[Enki]

I haven't but you are free to detect a god in anything I subsequently say.

As far as I can see the universe was either created in other words that could merely mean it was contingent on something else that is eternal, It is eternal itself even though everything observed so far seems contingent or it popped out of nothing. It comes down to those three.

Or, for instance, the universe could be contingent on something else that is itself contingent on something else ad infinitum. The only eternal quality in this scenario is the process of contingency itself.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Response to Vlad's Post 3:
All I can say about nothing is that it is the absence of something. I find it impossible to conceptualise nothing, I can only conceptualise something.

fair enough

One idea is that the universe goes through a continuous process of expansion and contraction. In theory, this could be ascertained and measured. I can't see why it would be a problem for science at all, especially as it has been proposed by scientists.
Assuming by 'natural' events you mean those that are investigable by science, why would you come to that conclusion? If either were true, why couldn't they be natural events/states which science has not yet discovered?
Well that's obvious isn't it! However even if I believed that something is 'eternal' it would depend upon the exact nature of the 'eternal' that is proposed by this 'someone else'. Hence, I would reserve the right to criticise  about the nature of this 'eternity'.

Yes it's one idea, Other ideas from equally respected scientists have it not doing that.

If it were true it would have either have started so we are back to 1) It being contingent
on something else 2) popped out of nothing or been doing it forever.

At the very least physicists believe at a big crunch or big bang the rules of physics break down and this might make scientific analysis impossible.

It might leave no remnant of the previous universe. That might make it impervious to science.

And after all that...... popping into existence, creation by something else or being eternal are not susceptible to scientific investigation.

[ippy]

Try YouTube:

A Universe from nothing Lawrence Krauss AAI 2009

And good luck if you understand it!

ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Or, for instance, the universe could be contingent on something else that is itself contingent on something else ad infinitum. The only eternal quality in this scenario is the process of contingency itself.

But I would move that you can't have contingency without a necessary.

Quick analogy. Supposing I wanted a fiver(the universe) and you agreed to lend it to me when nearly sane lent it to you......and this went back infinitely. I don't think I would ever get the fiver. Providing something is what infinites don't seem to do.

Now if I get a fiver it is because somewhere at a point in this chain somebody has put a fiver into the system(the necessary).

Try YouTube:

A Universe from nothing Lawrence Krauss AAI 2009

And good luck if you understand it!

ippy

That book is a standing joke amongst many scientists. Chiefly because what Krauss describes as nothing is a something.

[Roses]

One day science might come up with the answer, if it does I doubt any god type entity will be responsible for the creation of the universe.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Try YouTube:

A Universe from nothing Lawrence Krauss AAI 2009

And good luck if you understand it!

ippy

To be fair if Krauss really believes that the universe came out of a literal nothing.....that would be impenetrable in terms of establishing it by the scientific process.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

One day science might come up with the answer, if it does I doubt any god type entity will be responsible for the creation of the universe.

And that is your belief LR and I have to respect that.

Since science is about measurement and observation though in the case of the universe popping out of nothing science is going to have a huuuuuuuuuge problem observing and confirming the ''nothing'' aspect of that.

If the universe is eternal then how can that be observed and measured?

To say ''oh science will come up with something'' is scientism......a form of belief.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

One day science might come up with the answer, if it does I doubt any god type entity will be responsible for the creation of the universe.

Are you open to the idea of the universe being created but by a non god type entity then?

[Enki]

But I would move that you can't have contingency without a necessary.

Quick analogy. Supposing I wanted a fiver(the universe) and you agreed to lend it to me when nearly sane lent it to you......and this went back infinitely. I don't think I would ever get the fiver. Providing something is what infinites don't seem to do.

Now if I get a fiver it is because somewhere at a point in this chain somebody has put a fiver into the system(the necessary). . . .

And I would say that it is just as problematic to have a 'necessary' without asking the same question of contingency about it. If you are simply going to say that it is a case of special pleading to have a necessary, then I can suggest that I can use special pleading at whatever point I wish, also. So, for me, your analogy of the 'fiver' is simply a case of special pleading.

[Roses]

Are you open to the idea of the universe being created but by a non god type entity then?

If the universe was created by any sort of entity, how was it created?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And I would say that it is just as problematic to have a 'necessary' without asking the same question of contingency about it. If you are simply going to say that it is a case of special pleading to have a necessary, then I can suggest that I can use special pleading at whatever point I wish, also. So, for me, your analogy of the 'fiver' is simply a case of special pleading.

To counter your line......having contingency without necessity is like there being train drivers without the invention of trains.

It is highly illogical therefore to suggest contingency without necessity.

Something therefore has to be necessary i.e. it is it's own reason and explanation and that is either the universe as a whole or there is part or an aspect of the universe which is the necessary entity or there is an external necessary.

You cannot pull the old special pleading ruse here I'm afraid.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If the universe was created by any sort of entity, how was it created?

I don't know but I can't rule it out.

[Walter]

And I would say that it is just as problematic to have a 'necessary' without asking the same question of contingency about it. If you are simply going to say that it is a case of special pleading to have a necessary, then I can suggest that I can use special pleading at whatever point I wish, also. So, for me, your analogy of the 'fiver' is simply a case of special pleading.

quite simply ,Vlad IS a special pleader. All his posts have one aim . Don't be duped into playing his little game

[Enki]

To counter your line......having contingency without necessity is like there being train drivers without the invention of trains.

It is highly illogical therefore to suggest contingency without necessity.

Something therefore has to be necessary i.e. it is it's own reason and explanation and that is either the universe as a whole or there is part or an aspect of the universe which is the necessary entity or there is an external necessary.

You cannot pull the old special pleading ruse here I'm afraid.

You have just illustrated your own problem with your train analogy. There are train drivers because there are trains. So why stop at the invention of trains without them being a contingency of other causes/reasons? I suggest that it's because you don't wish to go there. In other words, I suggest that you don't wish to deal with the contingency element however far one goes back. That to me is special pleading. I'll have none of it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You have just illustrated your own problem with your train analogy. There are train drivers because there are trains. So why stop at the invention of trains without them being a contingency of other causes/reasons? I suggest that it's because you don't wish to go there. In other words, I suggest that you don't wish to deal with the contingency element however far one goes back. That to me is special pleading. I'll have none of it.

Enki firstly it isn't my problem if you can't follow the basic logic of necessity and contingency.

Secondly all you have ended up arguing for is an eternal universe and if that  is the case there still has to be a necessary aspect for contingency. What then is it.

Thirdly you are treating my analogy like a homology.

I suppose you could eliminate all problems regarding an infinite resulting in a universe if a follows b follows c to infinity by making this circular but then you would have reinvented the perpetual motion machine.

If you are saying therefore that the universe is it's own necessity then please show what this is, where I can find it and what dimensions and properties i'm looking for.

But at the end of the day you cannot have contingency without necessity...…….period.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You have just illustrated your own problem with your train analogy. There are train drivers because there are trains. So why stop at the invention of trains without them being a contingency of other causes/reasons? I suggest that it's because you don't wish to go there. In other words, I suggest that you don't wish to deal with the contingency element however far one goes back. That to me is special pleading. I'll have none of it.

Can you demonstrate therefore that the universe is eternal then? That it's contingency going back infinitum?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Did the universe pop out of nowhere and nothing?

I have no idea, and nor have you. Nor as "popping out" implies a prior state and time itself is a property of the universe do I know if the question is even coherent. What I do know though is that you're attempting to insinuate the cosmological argument, which will fails because it's a particularly bad argument (admittedly from a suite of bad arguments) that some theists try to justify their belief "god(s)".