Did the universe pop out of nowhere and nothing?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nah. I don’t think I’ll bother.
That’s a positive assertion. Please justify.

You cannot have contingency without necessity.

[jeremyp]

You cannot have contingency without necessity.

Can you justify that?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Can you justify that?

That's just simple logic Jeremy.
Things are either explained by other things (contingent) or they are explained adequately by themselves(necessary).

[Sassy]

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.

I believe most who have tried to prove no God and the universe having no creator are left with the only answer... God did it.  What would be the chances of one earth appearing out of a void with life on it and everything to sustain that life?  Let me know if you find another. ( SERIOUSLY HOPE EVERYONE KEEPING WELL AND INDOORS BE GOOD AND KIND TO ONE ANOTHER PRAYING YOU ALL MAKE IT THROUGH.LOVE SASSY.

[Outrider]

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

Much like there are multiple infinities, there's nothing and then there's nothing.  In some contexts a total vacuum is 'nothing', but we know there are spontaneous quantum fluctuations occuring there that briefly manifest and then destroy miniscule amounts of matter, anti-matter, energy and 'anti-energy'.

We currently don't have anything that detect or measure any extra-universal effects in order to be able to validate any hypotheses about what might or might not have happened in the events leading up to the inception of the universe; we have some notions about possible multiverses and parallel universe concepts, but currently no way to test them.

In the future, who knows what we might discover.  So far, science has been reliable but we're aware that it's limited in scope - we've been expanding that scope to try to answer more questions, like this one.

O.

[Outrider]

Not sure I agree with most of that but once you have discounted external creation then you are left with an infinite and eternal universe or its having popped out of nothing.

Or both.  Why's that a problem?

O.

[Outrider]

There are none.....

We currently don't know of any - that's not the same as 'there are none' or we could effectively demonstrate there is no god by the same argument.

as there are none to establish whether the universe appeared out of nothing spontaneously......or any to establish whether the universe is in fact eternal.

Absolutely, although they seem the likely conclusions from the information we do have.  You're always welcome to suggest a better hypothesis if you have new information.

And that as far as I can see is a problem for naturalism and scientism.

It would seem that you choose not to see very far...

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

And how would that be different from an eternal universe? Since whence is the borrowing from?

It doesn’t come “from” anywhere in the sense you imply. Theoretically quantum physics permits energy levels less than zero. Here’s an article (that you’ll almost certainly just ignore) to get you started:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/10/191002102750.htm
 

On the other hand if a universe has to borrow from an external source that is external creation.

Only if the “external source” was itself a creator, but no matter. Quantum borrowing is just one plausible (albeit currently untestable) hypothesis to explain how the universe could have come about with no “external” anything required.

Don't forget Krauss made a bit of a laughing stock of himself over a universe from nothing.....but not from accounts as much as Dawkins did.

Don’t forget, no he didn’t. What he actually did was to posit a hypothesis – some in the field found it plausible and others did not. That’s how science works, but it doesn’t make the proponent of an argument a “laughing stock” at all

[jeremyp]

That's just simple logic Jeremy.
Things are either explained by other things (contingent) or they are explained adequately by themselves(necessary).

All things?

How is something explained by itself? That would seem circular to me.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

We currently don't know of any - that's not the same as 'there are none' or we could effectively demonstrate there is no god by the same argument.

Obviously science should and will press on to investigate cosmology barging past people like Bertrand Russell and Richard Dawkins who proclaim that the ''universe just is''.

But the problem for science is huge in terms observing and measuring extra universe phenomena, nothing, or observing and measuring eternity. There is no mileage in terms of putting one's faith in the previous success in science SINCE THAT SUCCESS HAS ONLY BEEN IN TERMS OF OBSERVING AND MEASURING THINGS AND PROCESSES INSIDE THIS UNIVERSE.

I'm not saying that not being able to penetrate eternal universe etc proves they do not exist so I don't see any warrant for your comment ''we could effectively demonstrate there is no god by the same argument.''

[Walt Zingmatilder]

All things?

How is something explained by itself? That would seem circular to me.

It's either an external creator or it's the universe.....Take your pick. There not being one is not an option.

[jeremyp]

It's either an external creator or it's the universe.....Take your pick. There not being one is not an option.

I'll take the Universe then. There is evidence that it exists.

[Enki]

I believe most who have tried to prove no God and the universe having no creator are left with the only answer... God did it.  What would be the chances of one earth appearing out of a void with life on it and everything to sustain that life?  Let me know if you find another. ( SERIOUSLY HOPE EVERYONE KEEPING WELL AND INDOORS BE GOOD AND KIND TO ONE ANOTHER PRAYING YOU ALL MAKE IT THROUGH.LOVE SASSY.

What has trying 'to prove no God' any relevance to what I said? I have not said that. Perhaps you need to shut up, rather than get hold of the wrong stick entirely. As for the idea that  most suggesting that the earth had no creator are left with only one answer, that God did it, rubbish! There are plenty of people who don't believe that the earth was created by any god, never mind your God.

As for the idea about an earth appearing out of a 'void' whatever that means, with life and everything to sustain life on it:

1) That's  a crude and simplistic notion of how it happened according to our best scientific evidence

2) However improbable it might be that such a planet might be formed, as long as the chance is above zero, then it is obviously possible

3) The only life to consider the above would be precisely on such a planet

4) It is too soon for science to show that life has evolved on other planets, but much recent work has been done which shows that it is increasingly possible


As for your second part, I echo those sentiments.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

 
Only if the “external source” was itself a creator, but no matter. Quantum borrowing is just one plausible (albeit currently untestable) hypothesis to explain how the universe could have come about with no “external” anything required.

No external to the universe means that the universe is eternal....if these hypotheses are correct.....but again science has a huge problem in measuring and observing eternity.....where would it stand?....It is no use putting faith in the previous success of science since that has only been in the field of observing and measuring things in this universe.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'll take the Universe then. There is evidence that it exists.

I thought you would but alas I have to piss on that bonfire.....Yes, the evidence exists.....but evidence for contingency....and not necessity.

[Outrider]

Obviously science should and will press on to investigate cosmology barging past people like Bertrand Russell and Richard Dawkins who proclaim that the ''universe just is''.

I'm not aware of the context of Russell's commentary, but certainly with Professor Dawkins that's being taken grossly out of context - his comments were in relation to whether we should infer from the existence of the universe a creator, he was not talking with regards to a scientific explanation for the inception of our universe.

But the problem for science is huge in terms observing and measuring extra universe phenomena, nothing, or observing and measuring eternity. There is no mileage in terms of putting one's faith in the previous success in science SINCE THAT SUCCESS HAS ONLY BEEN IN TERMS OF OBSERVING AND MEASURING THINGS AND PROCESSES INSIDE THIS UNIVERSE.

I fail to understand what you're trying to say here - it worked before, therefore we can't presume it will continue to work?  That it's worked in the past is only a justification in so much as it has worked, we can't presume it's anything more than that? Why does it need to be?

I'm not saying that not being able to penetrate eternal universe etc proves they do not exist so I don't see any warrant for your comment ''we could effectively demonstrate there is no god by the same argument.''

That was one viable interpretation of what you'd written - if that wasn't your intent then fair enough.

O.
[/quote]

[Outrider]

It's either an external creator or it's the universe.....Take your pick. There not being one is not an option.

On the understanding that 'creator' in this instance may be an extra-universal correlate of physical processes, then yes - it's either an external cause or it's infinite.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

On the understanding that 'creator' in this instance may be an extra-universal correlate of physical processes, then yes - it's either an external cause or it's infinite.

O.

extra universal correlate of physical processes? Intrigued......Tell  on, please.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

No external to the universe means that the universe is eternal....if these hypotheses are correct.....but again science has a huge problem in measuring and observing eternity.....where would it stand?....It is no use putting faith in the previous success of science since that has only been in the field of observing and measuring things in this universe.

Nope. Science has a well-established and verifiable method to investigate phenomena. Sometimes its tools aren’t sufficient to investigate possible explanations, so they remain hypotheses – ie, propositions that are coherent, logically consistent and at least in principle testable. By contrast “god” has none of these characteristics: it’s incoherent, logically meaningless and has no means of testing even in principle (ie, the problem you always run away from). Hypotheses are in other words potentially either right or wrong; conjectures like “god” on the other hand are “not even wrong” – they’re just white noise.

In short, no matter how big you think the problem to be when science lacks the tools to investigate competing hypotheses, at least they are hypotheses and so sit within the right/wrong paradigm. “God” on the other hand is the negation of an explanation; it’s what people settle for when they’ve just thrown up their hands at the problem.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Nope. Science has a well-established and verifiable method to investigate phenomena. Sometimes its tools aren’t sufficient to investigate possible explanations, so they remain hypotheses – ie, propositions that are coherent, logically consistent and at least in principle testable. By contrast “god” has none of these characteristics: it’s incoherent, logically meaningless and has no means of testing even in principle (ie, the problem you always run away from). Hypotheses are in other words potentially either right or wrong; conjectures like “god” on the other hand are “not even wrong” – they’re just white noise.

In short, no matter how big you think the problem to be when science lacks the tools to investigate competing hypotheses, at least they are hypotheses and so sit within the right/wrong paradigm. “God” on the other hand is the negation of an explanation; it’s what people settle for when they’ve just thrown up their hands at the problem.

That makes not one iota of difference to what I said. Any success science has had is at looking at things in the universe from another part of the universe. That is irrelevant to observing and measuring eternity which presumably has to be done by being external to it.

Your faith in science is down to it becoming transcendant…...are you sure you want to go there?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

That makes not one iota of difference to what I said.

Yes it does. That science sometimes lacks the methods to investigate hypotheses isn’t an argument against science.

Any success science has had is at looking at things in the universe from another part of the universe.

Yes. So? 

That is irrelevant to observing and measuring eternity which presumably has to be done by being external to it.

Non sequitur. Why would an eternally old universe necessarily have needed an external agency? (I take it by the way that you didn’t bother to read the article I linked to re quantum borrowing?)

Your faith in science is down to it becoming transcendant…...

What are you even trying to say with the car crash of a sentence?

…are you sure you want to go there?

Where?

Oh, and as you just ignored it can you see the difference I just explained to you between an hypotheses (eg quantum borrowing) and white noise (eg, “god”)?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,
 

Non sequitur. Why would an eternally old universe necessarily have needed an external agency?

That's the point Hillside!!!! How can you demonstrate the universe is eternal?

Vlad Facepalms.

[Enki]

I thought you would but alas I have to piss on that bonfire.....Yes, the evidence exists.....but evidence for contingency....and not necessity.

What about reality then? I assume that our universe is real, and it is entirely possible that there are other universes also which are part of reality. God, we are often told, is real too. Hence, if that is true He is contingent on reality also. Could it be that reality is simply eternal in your scenario, that it is the necessary and simply just is. Remember also that the contingency idea is only evident within the real world.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,
 
Non sequitur. Why would an eternally old universe necessarily have needed an external agency?

If the universe is eternally old then I think we would be justified in observing that it would be like a perpetual motion machine. What is it then that keeps it going? If nothing external......what is necessary, inside the universe?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

That's the point Hillside!!!! How can you demonstrate the universe is eternal?

I didn’t claim that it was. I was just saying that an eternally old universe would not imply an external agency. 

Vlad Facepalms.

Blue much, much bigger facepalms.

So having watched you duck and dive again can you now grasp that the “problem” science has of lacking the tools to investigate some hypotheses (which some would call more of an opportunity in any case, but ok) is qualitatively different from and lesser than the problem theology has of offering no means at all of investigation of its claims even in principle?