Could the Universe have Created Itself?

[Paddy_Walker]

…even if time does go back infinitely, existence needs a reason for being an actual state, whereas nonexistence does not.

That would probably require a quantum fluctuation that can think… or just thought without the quantum fluctuation.

 

[Linux]

I don’t see why the the fact that a state of nothingness is logically impossible demands that there must be a perfect act of existence. It just means that something must exist.

No; it means that something which cannot possibly cease to be must exist. A perfect act of reality. If nothing cannot exist absolutely, then there has to be a being that exists absolutely, otherwise the possibility of that being not existing would mean the possibility of absolutely nothing existing.

 

[zro_x]

That would probably require a quantum fluctuation that can think… or just thought without the quantum fluctuation.

why? The big reason that people suppose that a mind is behind the universe is because a mind is one of the few things (besides numbers and a few abstract concepts) that is immaterial, and it seems to be the only immaterial thing that seems to be capable of causing something like the universe. If there is no first cause (an infinite string of physical causes), then there is no need to bring a mind into the picture.

 

[Paddy_Walker]

why? The big reason that people suppose that a mind is behind the universe is because a mind is one of the few things (besides numbers and a few abstract concepts) that is immaterial, and it seems to be the only immaterial thing that seems to be capable of causing something like the universe. If there is no first cause (an infinite string of physical causes), then there is no need to bring a mind into the picture.

I was just thinking about what you said

…existence needs a reason for being an actual state…

. I suppose you could have an existence that is unreasonable.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

You seem to be making the argument that true nothingness is logically impossible. If that is the case, then the answer to the question “why is there something rather than nothing?” is that true nothingness can’t be an actual state of affairs! something has to exist.

In fact what I say is a little less strong: you can’t have absolute nothing and also any sort of reasonability. Under the assumption of reasonability, true nothingness is logically impossible. Which is pretty much the same thing as saying under the assumption that logic is real, nothingness is logically impossible. Of course, if logic isn’t real, than logically impossible or logically possible becomes moot.

And yes, that does imply that there must at least be existence, though it does not imply anything actually have that property. You can have no universe, but in order to have reason, you can’t have absolutely nothing - you must at least have a first principal, some “thing” whose nature of being is to be. Some starting point for reason and existence and all that.

This we shall call God.

 

[Linux]

You can have no universe, but in order to have reason, you can’t have absolutely nothing - you must at least have a first principal, some “thing” whose nature of being is to be. Some starting point for reason and existence and all that.

This we shall call God.

Big bank take little bank.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

In fact what I say is a little less strong: you can’t have absolute nothing and also any sort of reasonability. Under the assumption of reasonability, true nothingness is logically impossible. Which is pretty much the same thing as saying under the assumption that logic is real, nothingness is logically impossible. Of course, if logic isn’t real, than logically impossible or logically possible becomes moot.

And yes, that does imply that there must at least be existence, though it does not imply anything actually have that property. You can have no universe, but in order to have reason, you can’t have absolutely nothing - you must at least have a first principal, some “thing” whose nature of being is to be. Some starting point for reason and existence and all that.

This we shall call God.

Where people get slant wise on " nothing " is that they think this includes even no God. But of course, when there was no universe, God did exist, and He certainly is something. The " nothing " referred to is " no material or contingent being, no matter ( however vague or non discript) and no dependent or contingent spiritual beings.

Linus2nd

 

[Estevao]

Excellent new video on the contingency argument/Leibnizian cosmological argument:

youtube.com/watch?v=s2ULF5WixMM

 

[zro_x]

No; it means that something which cannot possibly cease to be must exist. A perfect act of reality. If nothing cannot exist absolutely, then there has to be a being that exists absolutely, otherwise the possibility of that being not existing would mean the possibility of absolutely nothing existing.

This seems fair enough, but I’d stop short of saying that we need a “perfect act of existence.” All we really need is something that exists, which can not stop existing. objective truth itself seems to fit this criteria quite well.

 

[DCNBILL]

This seems fair enough, but I’d stop short of saying that we need a “perfect act of existence.” All we really need is something that exists, which can not stop existing. objective truth itself seems to fit this criteria quite well.

But would not objective truth be meaningless unless there was something like a mind to perceive it?

 

[JamesCaruso]

Its true that absolutely nothing cannot exist, since nothing is a distinction that is always referential to something that truly exists objectively speaking. For example there is no bike in the room. The absence of a bike is not the objective presence of a no-bike; that is meaningless. Nothing is the negation of a possible truth, not the presence of truth. Objective truth does not exist in nothing, so it can never be an objectively true state of affairs. Therefore an absolutely perfect act of existence - the antithesis of nothing - must exist.

Where “thing” refers only to the physical world, nothing indeed can exist. That is, where “no” “thing” exists, “nothing” exists, since thing does not refer to the spiritual or conceptual, only the physical, and the nothing that does exist is only conceptual, and therefore, itself does not exist in the physical sense. Again, what we are dealing with is a limitation of using finite terms when dealing with infinite concepts. In finite terms nothing can indeed exist, but in infinite terms, nothing can never exist (which is to say, thing must exist), since in infinite terms even the spiritual is a thing, and an infinite thing can never cease existing.

 

[zro_x]

I was just thinking about what you said .

I said that I was criticizing the idea that something must have a reason for being a state of affairs, while nothing does not need such a reason.

I suppose you could have an existence that is unreasonable.

not necessarily unreasonable. That implies that such a universe is logically impossible, or, at the very least, that the universe just exists seems highly unlikely. I’m thinking more along the lines of a universe that exists for no particular reason. The only alternative is nothingness, which demands just as much of an explanation as an existing universe. If it is even possible for nothingness to exist at all.

 

[zro_x]

In fact what I say is a little less strong: you can’t have absolute nothing and also any sort of reasonability. Under the assumption of reasonability, true nothingness is logically impossible. Which is pretty much the same thing as saying under the assumption that logic is real, nothingness is logically impossible. Of course, if logic isn’t real, than logically impossible or logically possible becomes moot.

Reasonability can’t not exist. If true nothingness is only logically possible without reasonability, then it is not logically possible at all.

Or perhaps you are merely claiming that true nothingness is fundamentally unintelligible?

And yes, that does imply that there must at least be existence, though it does not imply anything actually have that property. You can have no universe, but in order to have reason, you can’t have absolutely nothing - you must at least have a first principal, some “thing” whose nature of being is to be. Some starting point for reason and existence and all that.

This we shall call God.

All we really need is something that exists and that can not stop existing. Objective truth works just fine.

 

[1AugustSon7]

Supposing that that there is no prior stage, and “stuff” really came into existence with the big bang, then we must ask whether something can begin to exist without a cause, a question that I think remains open.

Well the Stagerite thought that the universe was probably or at least possibly eternal, which would at least seem to entail that it would not need a “cause” to begin since it would never have “began” at all. However, the same philosopher would seem to have also believed that - while a thing does not necessarily require a cause because it exists, most things that do actually exist require a cause that sustains them in existence or in actuality. Of course, God does not have or require a cause in any sense. I would also imagine that Aristotle would certainly have required any reduction from potency to have a cause that itself was necessarily actual and somehow contained its effect; or in other words, if anything begins or is generated in time it would necessarily require a cause to explain its coming into being.

 

[zro_x]

But would not objective truth be meaningless unless there was something like a mind to perceive it?

meaningless, perhaps, but it would still exist.

 

[Paddy_Walker]

I said that I was criticizing the idea that something must have a reason for being a state of affairs, while nothing does not need such a reason.

not necessarily unreasonable. That implies that such a universe is logically impossible, or, at the very least, that the universe just exists seems highly unlikely. I’m thinking more along the lines of a universe that exists for no particular reason. The only alternative is nothingness, which demands just as much of an explanation as an existing universe. If it is even possible for nothingness to exist at all.

So you’re wondering why there needs to be a reason at all for the existence of the universe.

Would that imply an eternal universe? As, if the universe had a beginning it would need a reason for its beginning if not its being.
If the universe exists but theres no reason for it is there an implication for the existence of reason in the universe.
In an eternal universe with no reason for its existence but which contains reason within it means that that reason is directed towards an end but the end contains something unreasonable within it.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

"zro x:

Reasonability can’t not exist. If true nothingness is only logically possible without reasonability, then it is not logically possible at all.

Or perhaps you are merely claiming that true nothingness is fundamentally unintelligible?

There are those who claim that reasonability is a man made myth - they throw out all of reason rather than admit in the existence of absolutes, which ultimately lead to God. I am not one of those people.

Basically I agree with you. Throwing out logic/reason destroys all argument, so even if it were possible, talking about what would necessarily logically happen would become meaningless and there would be no standard to debate anything at all. But some people do it.

All we really need is something that exists and that can not stop existing. Objective truth works just fine.

Which we call God. When we say God is Truth, we aren’t messing about.

Much of what natural reason can know about God can be deduced from this sort of argument, and that God is Truth, Goodness, Pure act, etc, etc, as well as that God is simple so that all of these things are fundamentally the same thing follow.

 

[zro_x]

So you’re wondering why there needs to be a reason at all for the existence of the universe.

Would that imply an eternal universe?

I am considering an eternal universe specifically at the moment, yes.

As, if the universe had a beginning it would need a reason for its beginning if not its being.

I’m not sure this is the case. It seems intuitive, but some would say that in a state of nothingness, (I don’t mean nothingness in the absolute sense here, just the absence of all matter, energy, forces, physical laws, and dimensions-spatial, temporal, or otherwise) a universe can come into existence without cause-- And some would go as far as to say that in such a state the universe must come into existence!

If the universe exists but there’s no reason for it is there an implication for the existence of reason in the universe.
In an eternal universe with no reason for its existence but which contains reason within it means that that reason is directed towards an end but the end contains something unreasonable within it.

I think we need to distinguish between the three senses of the word “reason” used here: “explanation”, “purpose”, and “logic”.

A universe with no explanation for its being exists purely by chance.Such a universe is logically possible. (even plausible, unlike the idea that the universal physical constants came about by chance) Logic need not have any purpose at all. It just exists, because it can’t not exist.

 

[Linux]

This seems fair enough, but I’d stop short of saying that we need a “perfect act of existence.” All we really need is something that exists, which can not stop existing. objective truth itself seems to fit this criteria quite well.

Objective Truth is an expression of existence itself. You cannot have one without the other. If absolutely nothing cannot exist, then there is a being that is a perfect act of existence, and this is simply to say that there is a being that cannot fail to exist. However, a being that cannot fail to exist is not as such in an arbitrary respect since the impossibility of nothing does not in and of itself efficiently “cause” the necessity of something; but rather a being is necessarily real precisely because it is the fullness of existence and as such is identical to existence. That which is not the fullness of existence is in potentiality to existence and is thus not identical to it (for example the universe is not identical to existence precisely because it changes/moving from potency to act at every instant of change). That which is the fullness of existence cannot be potentially more than what it is because it perfectly exists. Anything less than that can possibly not exist because its nature is not identical to the act of existence even though it participates in it; or rather, there would be no intelligible rational reason to say that it could not cease to be.

Unless of course you believe in brute facts. I do not because i do not believe it to be a rational concept. I understand that a being either has the explanation for its existence in itself or in the existence of another being.

Is that all you got?

 

[zro_x]

There are those who claim that reasonability is a man made myth - they throw out all of reason rather than admit in the existence of absolutes, which ultimately lead to God. I am not one of those people.

I have to say that I’m a bit confused. Are you making some sort of distinction between reason and logic? otherwise you seem to be saying, “I’m not saying something so strong as that true nothingness is logically impossible. I merely claim that true nothingness is impossible within the context of logic.”

Is there a difference?

Which we call God. When we say God is Truth, we aren’t messing about.

Much of what natural reason can know about God can be deduced from this sort of argument, and that God is Truth, Goodness, Pure act, etc, etc, as well as that God is simple so that all of these things are fundamentally the same thing follow.

That’s perfectly fine; it is a consistent, possible explanation of how the universe came into existence. I wouldn’t be Catholic if I thought otherwise.

The problem is that the only thing we need is objective truth. We don’t need to postulate a being that that has any power to manipulate matter, let alone a being that is omnipotent. We don’t need to postulate a being that has moral values, let alone a being that is omnibenevolent. we don’t need to postulate a mind, let alone a conscious, personal one. Heck, we don’t even need to postulate a pure act of existence. All we need is to accept that objective truth exists, that it can’t not exist, and that it will never stop existing.

Of course, this only pushes the problem back a little ways. certain abstract concepts must logically exist, but then we can ask, "why are there real things, rather than nothing.

And the answer here is that it is entirely possible that there are real things by complete chance. The odds that there are real things are exactly the same as the odds that there are not. 50% odds of there being real things does not exactly stretch the bounds of the imagination that real things exist completely by chance.