Could the Universe have Created Itself?

[Linusthe2nd]

Some modern physicists think the answer is yes. However there seems to be no evidence that this is so.For those who may be interested, there is no evidence for the assertion that there are experiments showing this universe creating something. This is pure hyperbolic speculation, it is not even known what ( if anything ) has been observed. If, indeed, some form of matter appeared where there had been none, it can only have come from some form of prior existing matter.

But besides this, is it possible that the universe could have created itself and that it sustains itself in existence?. There are lots of highly speculative theories to that effect Fr. Robert Spitzer of the Magis Center of Reason and Faith has some very interesting presentations about some of these theories. You can watch them here.
magisreasonfaith.org/spitzer_videos.html

Thomas Aquinas has demonstrated philosophically that only God can cause anything to exist, only he can create anything and sustain it in existence. He discusses this in the Summa Theologica, Part 1, Qs 44-45, and 103-109. You can read it for yourself.

Linus2nd

 

[Stillsosola]

The made universe is too awesome to have just happened I mean our circulatory systems alone are so infinitely complicated that I couldnt see us this universe all of creation just happening in my opinion at least I am confident that God created us and everything down to specks of dust as scripture he knows how many hairs on our heads and the grains of sand on the seashore

 

[Jozefo]

No.

 

[mark_a]

Creativity comes from a who, not a what.

 

[johnweeder]

Some modern physicists think the answer is yes.

Depends on your definition of “universe” and whether this universe is one or one of many.

If, indeed, some form of matter appeared where there had been none, it can only have come from some form of prior existing matter.

Simply not true. Any number of scientific experiments can be shown to have proved your statement false.

Thomas Aquinas has demonstrated philosophically

If he were so smart, why didn’t he know about quantum theory and relativity? Or even something simple like the casimir effect? How come he didn’t know the uncertainty principle?

 

[VanSensei]

I’m a big proponent of the notion that the universe was created many billions of years ago through an instant explosion, the likes of which we’ll probably never be capable of figuring out. However, I do somewhat believe that God had some part in it. I don’t know. I voted the second option because that’s what I kinda lean towards, however, I’m in the middle.

 

[Phil_Marinus]

This is an all important Question… Something that can and will be till the demise
of Humanity…
One basic fact of Astrophysics , or science of any nature is this,
You cant have a reaction without an action, meaning in simple basic terms,
you cant have a smashed drinking glass without it being impacted in some way…
life in itself is a reaction to some form of action… Galaxies are formed by huge dust and gas clouds forming to create stars which in turn explode , gravity binds things together to create masses of stars which swirl around forming galaxies…
these things take billions of years… if God Created everything in 6 actual 24 hour days,
then so be it… I wasn’t around to take notes of the event…
If by some strange chance there is no God, maybe these things could have happened by themselves… because it is a well proven fact, you cannot have an environment where
there is 100 % of nothing… you will always have electroparticles …if you want the actual facts on that it’s available on Google.

 

[Richca]

If a person takes a walk out in the woods and finds a watch, could he/she reasonably conclude that the watch created itself or that all its parts accidentally came together to form a watch? This would be absurd. He/she would conclude that somebody with intelligence made the watch. The universe is highly complex but it has order. It is reasonable to conclude that a being with intelligence put order in the universe unless we are to say that protons, nuetrons and electrons have intelligence.
Again, it is reasonable to conclude that a highly intelligent being fashioned the highly complex organism that is the human body.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Depends on your definition of “universe” and whether this universe is one or one of many.

I think you might find the discussion Videos by Fr. Robert Spitzer at the Magis Center of Reason and Faith quite interesting. He shows just how silly that idea is.

magisreasonfaith.org/spitzer_videos.html

Twelve are available for viewing.

Simply not true. Any number of scientific experiments can be shown to have proved your statement false.

 

[meltzerboy]

A third possibility is that the universe was not created at all by itself or by G-d. It just always existed and changed from one form to another throughout eternity. I’ll remain with G-d, however, as the Creator.

 

[EphelDuath]

Besides…the existence of the universe isn’t philosophical. It’s real, it’s concrete, it’s right in front of us.

Most people don’t appreciate philosophy because they either imagine Kant prattling in endless run-on sentences with such complex terminology that nobody could really care, or imagine Hegel spewing literal nonsense and being praised as a ‘modern unappreciated genius’. Frankly I think neither of these are real ‘philosophies’.

Thomism is widely respected because it DOES consider the universe as a real concrete thing in front of us. The world is only understandable because the human mind gathers certain abstractions from it that are bound by logical coherence. And Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas do nothing more but consider the relationship between the words we use and the abstractions that our minds have made (that’s why philosophy is interchangeable with grammar in Arabic). Without that established relationship, no science at all is meaningful.

So you can ask: what would Aquinas say about modern scientific developments? Probably nothing substantially different. Despite decades of shocking discoveries in the fields of quantum physics and psychology, the relationship between human abstractions and words haven’t changed.

 

[johnweeder]

Drag them out then and prove me wrong. And don’t just mention them by name, explain them and explain just how they are supposed to show that " something is being created from nothing

Rather than explain it here, I will simply direct you to quantum fluctuations (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation) on the wiki site. Scientific references are provided to people far more educated than I.

I will borrow wiki’s very succinct description of the phenomenon. “A quantum fluctuation is the temporary appearance of energetic particles out of empty space, as allowed by the Uncertainty Principle.”

We can see experimental proof of the effect in, for example, various experiments over the last nearly 50 years which have validated the Casimir Effect.

I would like to observe that, as far as I can tell, Fr. Robert Spitzer accepts these scientific phenomenon in the post big bang universe though he questions them pre big bang.

Your original question was “there are experiments showing THIS universe creating something” (emphasis is mine). I.e. your question is specifically POST big bang. I believe that, therefore, I, Dr Spitzer and the vast majority of the scientific community all agree and that you are, most likely, wrong.

 

[jesus4ever]

If its dinner time and you are hungry then you or someone else has to make dinner, right. Its not going to make itself. Same with the Universe and people who are scencetist and believe such a thing should have a change in career.

 

[johnweeder]

Do you even know who Thomas Aquinas was? Why don’t you look him up in the Catholic Encyclopedia and find out, ( I promise it won’t burn your fingers ). Then you will see just how inappropriate that remark was. It should make you a little embarrassed.

I said “If he were so smart, why didn’t he know about quantum theory and relativity? Or even something simple like the casimir effect? How come he didn’t know the uncertainty principle?”

A) I have read as much or more of him than you.

B) He did NOT, in fact, know of these things. So, I stated a simple rhetorical question. Why should it embarrass me to do this?

Aquinas did not know of the universe as we do today. I have pointed scientific fact out to you. You have done nothing but admonish me to read what I have already read. And listen to those who I already follow.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Here is an interesting review of Lawrence Kraus’ book, A Universe from Nothing, by the noted philosopher, Edward Feser, entitled, Not Understanding Nothing.

firstthings.com/article/2012/05/not-understanding-nothing

What we lean is that Kraus, Stephen Hawking, Leonard Mlodinow, Peter Atlins, et al don’t have the faintest idea of what " nothing " means. To them it is a state full of ultimate matter of some sort, interacting to the tune of the " currently accepted laws of physics, " from which they claim the universe is created. They are forever preaching this stuff to cheering masses university students and in assorted ideological Salons throughout the world.

But what is painfully evident is that these grand pubahs of the pop science circuit can’t recognize the most fundamental of metaphysical laws, that a thing cannot be and not be at the same moment, in the same respect, the law of Non-Contradiction. For " nothing " is not " nothing " to them, but " something. " So, by their own lips they have condemnd themselves. For, according to their own explanation, the universe cannot have arisen out of nothing but out of something. Therefore the universe cannot have created itself.

Feser says, " The bulk of the book is devoted to exploring how the energy present in otherwise empty space, together with the laws of physics, might have given rise to the universe as it exists today. This is at first treated as if it were highly relevant to the question of how the universe might have come from nothing—until Krauss acknowledges toward the end of the book that energy, space, and the laws of physics don’t really count as “nothing” after all. Then it is proposed that the laws of physics alone might do the trick—though these too, as he implicitly allows, don’t really count as “nothing” either. "

One would think these guys would apologize for attempting to hood wink the gullible masses. But as long as the $$ keep flowing in, why should they.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I’m a big proponent of the notion that the universe was created many billions of years ago through an instant explosion, the likes of which we’ll probably never be capable of figuring out. However, I do somewhat believe that God had some part in it. I don’t know. I voted the second option because that’s what I kinda lean towards, however, I’m in the middle.

Why not look at the references I have provided? Also the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

I. CATECHESIS ON CREATION

282 Catechesis on creation is of major importance. It concerns the very foundations of human and Christian life: for it makes explicit the response of the Christian faith to the basic question that men of all times have asked themselves:120 “Where do we come from?” “Where are we going?” “What is our origin?” “What is our end?” “Where does everything that exists come from and where is it going?” the two questions, the first about the origin and the second about the end, are inseparable. They are decisive for the meaning and orientation of our life and actions.

293 Scripture and Tradition never cease to teach and celebrate this fundamental truth: "The world was made for the glory of God."134 St. Bonaventure explains that God created all things “not to increase his glory, but to show it forth and to communicate it”,135 for God has no other reason for creating than his love and goodness: "Creatures came into existence when the key of love opened his hand."136 The First Vatican Council explains:

This one, true God, of his own goodness and “almighty power”, not for increasing his own beatitude, nor for attaining his perfection, but in order to manifest this perfection through the benefits which he bestows on creatures, with absolute freedom of counsel "and from the beginning of time, made out of nothing both orders of creatures, the spiritual and the corporeal. . ."137

The teachings of the Catechism, in matters of Faith, are no more optional for a Catholic than the Church’s moral teaching. Our object in life is not to " fit in, " but to know and live and pass on the truth in both areas.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

There is actually quite a bit of evidence on this.
And you must remember, Aquinas died eight centuries ago…long, long before current scientific evidence and exploration and technology. Had he lived today, surrounded by so much research, I wonder what he would say.
Besides…the existence of the universe isn’t philosophical. It’s real, it’s concrete, it’s right in front of us.

.

But why not examine the information I have provided? The fact that Thomas lived 800 years ago does not change the truth and logic of what he taught. And Fr. Spitzer has some interesting things to say about this interpretation of the meaning of science.

Linus2nd

 

[Jaaanosik]

Here is an interesting review of Lawrence Kraus’ book, A Universe from Nothing, by the noted philosopher, Edward Feser, entitled, Not Understanding Nothing.

firstthings.com/article/2012/05/not-understanding-nothing

What we lean is that Kraus, Stephen Hawking, Leonard Mlodinow, Peter Atlins, et al don’t have the faintest idea of what " nothing " means. To them it is a state full of ultimate matter of some sort, interacting to the tune of the " currently accepted laws of physics, " from which they claim the universe is created. They are forever preaching this stuff to cheering masses university students and in assorted ideological Salons throughout the world.

But what is painfully evident is that these grand pubahs of the pop science circuit can’t recognize the most fundamental of metaphysical laws, that a thing cannot be and not be at the same moment, in the same respect, the law of Non-Contradiction. For " nothing " is not " nothing " to them, but " something. " So, by their own lips they have condemnd themselves. For, according to their own explanation, the universe cannot have arisen out of nothing but out of something. Therefore the universe cannot have created itself.

Feser says, " The bulk of the book is devoted to exploring how the energy present in otherwise empty space, together with the laws of physics, might have given rise to the universe as it exists today. This is at first treated as if it were highly relevant to the question of how the universe might have come from nothing—until Krauss acknowledges toward the end of the book that energy, space, and the laws of physics don’t really count as “nothing” after all. Then it is proposed that the laws of physics alone might do the trick—though these too, as he implicitly allows, don’t really count as “nothing” either. "

One would think these guys would apologize for attempting to hood wink the gullible masses. But as long as the $$ keep flowing in, why should they.

Linus2nd

Linus, do you know and understand the vacuum energy?

 

[Jimdandy]

No.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Rather than explain it here, I will simply direct you to quantum fluctuations (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation) on the wiki site. Scientific references are provided to people far more educated than I.

I will borrow wiki’s very succinct description of the phenomenon. “A quantum fluctuation is the temporary appearance of energetic particles out of empty space, as allowed by the Uncertainty Principle.”

And how have they directly verified this phenonenon? Or is this some sort of inference from something actually verified or is this mere mathematical theorizing?

And what do they mean by** empty** space ?

We can see experimental proof of the effect in, for example, various experiments over the last nearly 50 years which have validated the Casimir Effect.

You have made some bold statements, you should at least be able to explain the Casimir Effect and defend your conclusion. I’m entitled to reject your conclusion unless you can discuss and explain it intelligently. You are the one who said this is an example of matter being created from nothing. I challenge that statement. You must prove that, not just assert it. And if you are not saying that, then clarify what you are saying.

I would like to observe that, as far as I can tell, Fr. Robert Spitzer accepts these scientific phenomenon in the post big bang universe though he questions them pre big bang.

To be accurate, Fr. Spitzer does not say which he accepts, nor does it matter. What he rejects is the conclusions drawn by a certain clique of scientists promoting unsubstantiated conclusions. And he is showing how these are most certainly wrong.

Your original question was “there are experiments showing THIS universe creating something” (emphasis is mine). I.e. your question is specifically POST big bang. I believe that, therefore, I, Dr Spitzer and the vast majority of the scientific community all agree and that you are, most likely, wrong.

No. My statement was, " … there is no evidence for the assertion that there are experiments showing this universe creating something…" My statement could apply either pre or post Big Bang. It all depends on when some individual states that " creation " began or took place. So I am not wrong. You pick whatever moment you choose.

Linus2nd