Could the Universe have Created Itself?

[Protestor]

Created itself no, but sustains itself probably. Unless you want to reason that Gods creation would fall into chaos without him sustaining. If he did it would probably be through physical laws and not directly. I dont know quote some scripture for this view and then discerning this would be easier.

I think hyperbolic speculation is a pretty harsh phrasing but you are entitled to your opinion.

 

[JohnMichaels]

John Michaels and JohnWeeder

If you want to discuss sex, pedophilia, etc. please have the courtesy to start your own thread.

Linu2nd

I didn’t bring up the topic change, I just rolled with it. If I see something I want to comment on, the fact that the subject matter is technically in an incorrect location doesn’t impede my desire to debate the subject
I do apologize for dragging it out, and quite possibly wasting a few posts in the limit (in the overall) but that is a selfish way to look at it

 

[johnweeder]

Can someone explain how nothing did something? I thought nothing did nothing. I thought that was the meaning of nothing, 0=0=0=0=0=0=0=0=0 Can it ever =1 or2 or3? If so how?

One of many,

I would offer the following simplistic example of my perception of the physical word:

Yes, 0 = 0. But (+1) + (-1) also equals zero. In a quantum fluctuation, everything sums to zero and yet virtual particles are generated. Later they annihilate each other.

Similarly, some (most?) argue that the sum of all physical things in the universe is zero. And, yet, you obviously perceive a universe.

There are deeper complexities, of course, but in a broad brush stroke this is approximately the case.

 

[johnweeder]

but empirically empty space is found to be far from nothing.

I would agree vis a vi the physical world. However, your contention is misleading.

I could argue that Heisenberg observes it is not possible for any region with bounds larger than the Planck length to be empty.

“Empty” is also relative like everything else in the universe. Can I say my velocity is absolutely zero? No. Only relatively zero. None the less, this does not stop me from speaking about not moving.

What you are saying, I believe, is that the physical definition and metaphysical definition of “empty” are different. Fine, I think everyone excepts that. However, in the physical world and using the definitions of science, I believe I am quite proper in saying (in broad strokes) that quantum fluctuations are observed to produce something from nothing for at least a finite period of time.

 

[Peebo]

If you believe that God created all things you are a christian…read the beginning of Genesis…if you doubt God then you are an agnostic…if you don’t believe in God then you are an atheist…it all boils down to faith…faith is not based on science…neither does faith in God deny science…science does however to a large extent deny God…(or should I say scientists rather than science) if you believe…then you have faith…if you doubt or don’t believe…you either lack faith or have no faith…one thing we all can understand…we will all die…if there is no God then believers…doubters and unbelievers will all meet the same fate…if there is a God…believers will reap the reward promised them by God…doubters and unbelievers will reap the consequences of their doubt and unbelief promised them by God…it’s not complicated for those who believe through faith…insurmountable for those who won’t or don’t.

 

[inocente]

Apparently you discriminate in your choice of philosophers. Krauss seems to regard himself as something of a philosopher. And I must say, your defense of Krauss is strange in light of the following. Krauss seems dedicated to erasing the notion of God from all the young skulls full of mush.

A quote from Krauss in the Atlantic magazine " If the multiverse really exists, then you could have an infinite object—infinite in time and space as opposed to our universe, which is finite. That may beg the question as to where the multiverse came from, but if it’s infinite, it’s infinite. You might not be able to answer that final question, and I try to be honest about that in the book. But if you can show how a set of physical mechanisms can bring about our universe, that itself is an amazing thing and it’s worth celebrating. I don’t ever claim to resolve that infinite regress of why-why-why-why-why; as far as I’m concerned it’s turtles all the way down. The multiverse could explain it by being eternal, in the same way that God explains it by being eternal, but there’s a huge difference: the multiverse is well motivated and God is just an invention of lazy minds. "

theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/04/has-physics-made-philosophy-and-religion-obsolete/256203/

One assumes that even Baptists are included among those " lazy minds " which have " invented " the notion of God. What he is saying here is that God is nothing more than an invention to fill in the " gap " of explantion needed to make our existence intelligible. Strange that you should defend on who has so high a disregard believers of all of all persuasions. And while you may dislike Feser because of his polemics, at least he is defending the notion of God, even if he is not of your faith.

It is difficult to see how you could ever reach Krauss, or those who follow him, by Sola Scriptora. He would just laugh at you, in fact he already has. The only way to reach him is through solid philosophical argumentation. He may not be reached by that, but some of those who have listened to him may.

Oh, by the way, you omitted the philosophical definition of " nothing, " which is the absence of anything, even " empty space." ( Courtesy of Thomas Aquinas )

You should send your post to Matt Fradd here at Catholic Answers so he can add your magnificent example of ad hominem to his article - catholic.com/blog/matt-fradd/responding-to-the-ad-hominem-fallacy

It’s OK to listen to Krauss on his area of expertise, cosmology, and ignore him spouting about religion. In the same way we don’t go to Feser to learn about, oh, say principle of inertia.

Krauss has made comments to the effect that scientists love a mystery, they love finding out, and that’s at odds with what he calls the “sterile certainty” which some folk profess about their religion, and I’d agree with him on that, a certain mind is a closed mind.

Regarding empty space not being nothing, I think these days we’d all agree. The question though is whether the absence of everything, even of empty space, is even possible outside of our imagination, and the physics suggests it isn’t.

 

[inocente]

I would agree vis a vi the physical world. However, your contention is misleading.

I could argue that Heisenberg observes it is not possible for any region with bounds larger than the Planck length to be empty.

“Empty” is also relative like everything else in the universe. Can I say my velocity is absolutely zero? No. Only relatively zero. None the less, this does not stop me from speaking about not moving.

What you are saying, I believe, is that the physical definition and metaphysical definition of “empty” are different. Fine, I think everyone excepts that. However, in the physical world and using the definitions of science, I believe I am quite proper in saying (in broad strokes) that quantum fluctuations are observed to produce something from nothing for at least a finite period of time.

The second of those videos I linked mentions that it takes an enormous amount of energy to stop the fluctuations, and a state without any fluctuations is highly unstable.

Truly empty nothingness may not then be able to exist outside the heads of certain metaphysicists (not as I’m calling them empty headed ).

 

[Charlemagne_II]

**inocente

Krauss has made comments to the effect that scientists love a mystery, they love finding out, and that’s at odds with what he calls the “sterile certainty” which some folk profess about their religion, and I’d agree with him on that, a certain mind is a closed mind.**

Are you certain of that?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

You should send your post to Matt Fradd here at Catholic Answers so he can add your magnificent example of ad hominem to his article - catholic.com/blog/matt-fradd/responding-to-the-ad-hominem-fallacy

What ad hominem? You mean Krauss was only thinking of Catholics? I’m sure he was thinking of all believers, including Baptists. You are engaging in special pleading.

It’s OK to listen to Krauss on his area of expertise, cosmology, and ignore him spouting about religion. In the same way we don’t go to Feser to learn about, oh, say principle of inertia.

It is obvious Krauss is not a specialist in Cosmology. He is a theoretical physicist, that does not qualify him as a cosmologist.

Krauss has made comments to the effect that scientists love a mystery, they love finding out, and that’s at odds with what he calls the “sterile certainty” which some folk profess about their religion, and I’d agree with him on that, a certain mind is a closed mind.

You seem very confused. Aren’t you certain about your Faith, that God exists for instance, or that he created the universe in time out of nothing ( out of no prior existing being whatsoever) ?

Regarding empty space not being nothing, I think these days we’d all agree. The question though is whether the absence of everything, even of empty space, is even possible outside of our imagination, and the physics suggests it isn’t.

Apparentlty it was possible, unless you are implying that some kind of matter existed which was not created by God. I find it hard to imagine how you would square that with your Faith. But you are full of surprises, I’m sure you will dream up an answer.

P.S. Nothing, defined by Thomas is not merely the absence of " empty " space, it is the absence of even space, if that can be regarded as the irreducible " nothing " that scientists can comprehend. I can’t think how I can make it more " imaginable. "

Linus2nd

 

[johnweeder]

Truly empty nothingness may not then be able to exist outside the heads of certain metaphysicists (not as I’m calling them empty headed ).

I agree.

The physical universe is strange and my real point is that we are now primarily arguing subtleties of terms and definitions; or alternatively arguing from different points of view which are mathematically equivalent.

I have no interest in arguing the metaphysical (as some people do) or wishing to constrain the physical by it. Someone telling me “the Bible/dogma says P and therefore Q” simply results in a stupid tautological debate since they will never respect any reasoned debate about the validity of P itself. If I accepted this position, I would still be believing in a flat earth and geocentrism.

In the physical, I could argue that perhaps everything we think we perceive is merely a holographic project from something without time or dimension (using holographic as Susskind defined it). Perhaps what we perceive is merely our perception of unit-less bits of “information” (as my personal idol Shannon defined it).

Or maybe I could claim that a single quantum measurement creates information (entropy). In this simplest of cases, was something (informational entropy) created? Did the quantum field create it? Did my observation of the quantum field create it? What precisely can terms like empty or nothing or observation mean within the scope of this discussion? Is it proper to say “create” or is this merely the evolution of a system? If evolution of a system, why a system which does not obey time symmetry (quantum measurements are not time symmetric) ?

The problem, inocente, is I cannot rigorously define such concepts here. The math is beyond most people (not that they are stupid… merely they have studied other things in their lives and it would takes years to educate them with the framework necessary to rigorously present a position).

So, I point out simple and well accepted cases like quantum fluctuations and smart and clever people see the grey areas or the unresolveds or the undefined and then proceed to abandon wisdom to claim their small insight somehow invalidates the validity of the larger premise. And, so we spiral down with ever more complexity.

Ultimately we reach the end of human knowledge… at this point someone says, “no, wait, the Bible/dogma says X and this is indisputable… therefore your lack of total knowledge or your inability to prove it with absolute certainty means even the knowledge you think you have is wrong”.

I reject this.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I agree.

The physical universe is strange and my real point is that we are now primarily arguing subtleties of terms and definitions; or alternatively arguing from different points of view which are mathematically equivalent.

Gee, another ad hominem. Let’s see now, those who refuse to be duped or who refuse to be duped by others who have been duped are empty headed. But perhaps we could turn it around and say, those who have bet the house on the wild speculations of certain scientists who pose as Philosophers of Natural Philosophy are empty headed.

I have no interest in arguing the metaphysical (as some people do) or wishing to constrain the physical by it. Someone telling me “the Bible/dogma says P and therefore Q” simply results in a stupid tautological debate since they will never respect any reasoned debate about the validity of P itself. If I accepted this position, I would still be believing in a flat earth and geocentrism.

Good golly Molly one invalid assumption and two ad hominems. Your warming up John. Prove if you can that metaphysics constrains the physical ( I assume you mean science). You can’t prove it because science assumes the very realities that metaphysics deals with.

And so people who believe the Bible or the Tradition of Christian belief or define Dogmas to be believed are " stupid " and flat earthers and geocentrists. How clever of you, two more ad hominems. So your argument is, anyone who disagrees with you or the mad scientists on the lecture circuit are just plain stupid. What a wonderful argument for your side! Who would have thought that ad hominems were valid arguments. I can’t wait for Innocente to comment on the Bible part though, that should be interesting.

In the physical, I could argue that perhaps everything we think we perceive is merely a holographic project from something without time or dimension (using holographic as Susskind defined it). Perhaps what we perceive is merely our perception of unit-less bits of “information” (as my personal idol Shannon defined it).

More wild speculation.

Or maybe I could claim that a single quantum measurement creates information (entropy). In this simplest of cases, was something (informational entropy) created? Did the quantum field create it? Did my observation of the quantum field create it? What precisely can terms like empty or nothing or observation mean within the scope of this discussion? Is it proper to say “create” or is this merely the evolution of a system? If evolution of a system, why a system which does not obey time symmetry (quantum measurements are not time symmetric) ?

Or you could claim the Moon was made of green cheese. Your odds of being right would be just as great as the claim that quantum fields create something - aside from well deserved hoots and howls.

The problem, inocente, is I cannot rigorously define such concepts here. The math is beyond most people (not that they are stupid… merely they have studied other things in their lives and it would takes years to educate them with the framework necessary to rigorously present a position).

Gee, now we are into Gnosticsm. Only the initiated few can see the truth. Not a very egalitarian thought. If you could only whip us into shape we would see the light.

So, I point out simple and well accepted cases like quantum fluctuations and smart and clever people see the grey areas or the unresolveds or the undefined and then proceed to abandon wisdom to claim their small insight somehow invalidates the validity of the larger premise. And, so we spiral down with ever more complexity.

Blatant, unjustified assumptions I would call them and quite obvious, decidedly not " grey areas ". So obvious that one stumbles all over them before cracking a book. You don’t have to be a whiz in either math or physics to see that what the modern snake oil salesmen are selling is a blatant lie , a lie by men and women who hate the very idea of God and of Christianity.

Ultimately we reach the end of human knowledge… at this point someone says, “no, wait, the Bible/dogma says X and this is indisputable… therefore your lack of total knowledge or your inability to prove it with absolute certainty means even the knowledge you think you have is wrong”

You can’t prove it with any degree of certainty, they are the stuff of pure science fiction. You don’t have to accept either the Bible or any ( darn ) Dogmas. But don’t advertize that you are something you are not, that is simply dishonest.

And if you don’t want responses don’t write posts which clearly invite them.
’

Linus2nd
I reject this.

 

[JohnMichaels]

You don’t have to be a whiz in either math or physics to see that what the modern snake oil salesmen are selling is a blatant lie , a lie by men and women who hate the very idea of God and of Christianity.

So you’re saying…scientists hate God & make up lies about God & Christianity by mentioning neither?

A head-scratcher, to be sure :takethat:

 

[kmcarl56]

I also believe God created “it” (even though the it may be something “larger”). That doesn’t stop me from wanting to understand it.

You say the universe is a machine. If so, it is an interesting one because it is not deterministic. I.e. given a start state, you cannot know an end state with perfect confidence. Consider that it is not possible to know the outcome of even one single quantum event (careful with this one tho… the quantum bomb detector seems to allow knowing one event by virtue of observing another but has a constraint by the need to limit the rate of propagation of information).

To conjure a ridiculous example, I believe the universe, in essence, allows (the quantum equivalent of) a pink elephant to appear from quantum nothingness into the very air in front of you. It is unlikely but it is allowed. Everything physical you look and see and feel changes as you observe it. Your computer may have just disappeared. Unlikely, yes, but possible (it would not be good for you if this happened!).

You are funny, and you made me smile! Thank you, I needed that. I just think that since God created the universe, and He created the earth, the skies, the land, the seas, and all of the creatures thereon, including us, then why do I NEED to question where it came from. I already know the answer.

Don’t get me wrong, I love science and technology. I aced botany, zoology and historical geology. I loved the study of our intricate world down to the nucleus. I love to create web sites and slide shows for YouTube, etc. I just think that by questioning the matters of creation by God, and God alone, is showing a small amount of lack of faith on my part. It may have taken millions of years for Him to do it, but that doesn’t matter to me.

What matters to me is what I am doing with what He gave us right now. I need to make a difference in the world somehow. I *need *to spread the gospel. I *need *to show my love for my brothers and sisters in Christ wherever they may live. I *need *to continue to learn and grow in God’s Word.

…and I love you as my brother. Thank you so very much.

 

[Flimmy]

A simple no, for the simple reason that it is impossible.

Though combining im and possible, implies a sort of precursor chance of possible.

It is not up to debate.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

So you’re saying…scientists hate God & make up lies about God & Christianity by mentioning neither?

A head-scratcher, to be sure :takethat:

For a man so eager to condemn the evils and " ignorance " of believers, you seems suspiciously ignorant of the ideological warts of your atheist friends, not all of course but many. For example we find the following pointed our by Edward Fesser in :So You Think You Understand the Cosmological Argument ? : " Hence Thomas Nagel opines that a “fear of religion” seems often to underlie the work of his fellow secularist intellectuals, and that it has had “large and often pernicious consequences for modern intellectual life.” He continues:

I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that. My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and that it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time. One of the tendencies it supports is the ludicrous overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about human life, including everything about the human mind… This is a somewhat ridiculous situation… *t is just as irrational to be influenced in one’s beliefs by the hope that God does not exist as by the hope that God does exist. (The Last Word, pp. 130-131)

Jeremy Waldron tells us that:

Secular theorists often assume they know what a religious argument is like: they present it as a crude prescription from God, backed up with threat of hellfire, derived from general or particular revelation, and they contrast it with the elegant complexity of a philosophical argument by Rawls (say) or Dworkin. With this image in mind, they think it obvious that religious argument should be excluded from public life… But those who have bothered to make themselves familiar with existing religious-based arguments in modern political theory know that this is mostly a travesty… (God, Locke, and Equality, p. 20) "

edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/07/so-you-think-you-understand.html

This is just an example but the point is made.

Linus2nd*

 

[tonyrey]

Some modern physicists think the answer is yes. However there seems to be no evidence that this is so.

Absurd hypotheses are invulnerable because they are impossible to prove or disprove.

 

[zro_x]

At the risk of repeating what has already been said and bringing up points which have already been succesfully disputed (ten pages is a lot to wade through), I think that it is possible for the universe to have arisen on its own accord. There are many different models which physicists and others have proposed that could describe how this comes about, and it seems to me that most of them stand up under scrutiny.

1., we must recognize that the law of cause and effect is not necessary, as many suppose. It is an empirical observation, a rule which may not hold in all possible worlds. In the total absence of everything, all matter, energy, and physical laws, including the law of cause and effect, effects actually may happen without causes, including the beginning of the universe.

1. the first theory may not even be relevant, if you hold, as many cosmologists do, that time and space themselves began with the big bang. Steven Hawking supposes that time acts more and more like a spatial dimension the further back in time you go, and that if you went back far enough, you’d find yourself going forward again. Ultimately, the idea is that if you could look at the universe from a four dimensional perspective, you would see that, although the universe is made up of parts, it is eternal and unchanging.
2. There are several versions of the multiverse theory out there. some hold that the universe, and all other hypothetical universes, came into existence from some sort of primordial soup of energy and quantum fluctuation that has always existed. (Kraus’s theory, as I understand it) Others suppose that new universes form when expanding universes colide with each other. My personal favorite is the idea that new universes form from the black holes of parent universes.

 

[JohnMichaels]

For a man so eager to condemn the evils and " ignorance " of believers, you seems suspiciously ignorant of the ideological warts of your atheist friends, not all of course but many.

I am eager to do no such thing. If I was, I’m going about it wrong. I can personally think of 4 different ways off the top of my head to have better accomplished that goal (however unlikely I feel I’d be at accomplishing it) than how I presented my arguments when i got here.
If you mean me overall, I’m not anti-theist. So there

For example we find the following pointed our by Edward Fesser in :So You Think You Understand the Cosmological Argument ? : " Hence Thomas Nagel opines that a “fear of religion” seems often to underlie the work of his fellow secularist intellectuals, and that it has had “large and often pernicious consequences for modern intellectual life.” He continues:

Like, but I was talking about science, & I thought you were to. I went and checked into that " quantum fluctuations" which is what you called LIES &, I couldn’t find one mention of Religion or God in the explanations of it. While I didn’t understand it really, still didn’t seem to mention God anywhere I looked. If your basis is some guy wrote that he thinks secular scientists hate God, and all their work stems from that regardless of the lack of mention…You’ll have to win that argument because how can I debate a made up mind?

Jeremy Waldron tells us that:

edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/07/so-you-think-you-understand.html

This is just an example but the point is made.

Linus2nd

When I said what I said above I hadn’t read this…turns out “some guy wrote that he thinks secular scientists hate God” really is what’s going on… Yet, I don’t know who they are . I checked them out & I don’t think they are qualified as authorities on the subjects I thought I was replying to.
I understand this is the philosophy section of the site, & they have degrees in philosophy, but I’m not sure how they related to what was being discussed. Feser seems to want to prove God. I’ve yet to see a scientific study claiming to disprove it, so…
What I did see, is this guy is mad when he writes, and in turn it makes you all worked up

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I am eager to do no such thing. If I was, I’m going about it wrong. I can personally think of 4 different ways off the top of my head to have better accomplished that goal (however unlikely I feel I’d be at accomplishing it) than how I presented my arguments when i got here.
If you mean me overall, I’m not anti-theist. So there

Like, but I was talking about science, & I thought you were to. I went and checked into that " quantum fluctuations" which is what you called LIES &, I couldn’t find one mention of Religion or God in the explanations of it. While I didn’t understand it really, still didn’t seem to mention God anywhere I looked. If your basis is some guy wrote that he thinks secular scientists hate God, and all their work stems from that regardless of the lack of mention…You’ll have to win that argument because how can I debate a made up mind?

When I said what I said above I hadn’t read this…turns out “some guy wrote that he thinks secular scientists hate God” really is what’s going on… Yet, I don’t know who they are . I checked them out & I don’t think they are qualified as authorities on the subjects I thought I was replying to.
I understand this is the philosophy section of the site, & they have degrees in philosophy, but I’m not sure how they related to what was being discussed. Feser seems to want to prove God. I’ve yet to see a scientific study claiming to disprove it, so…
What I did see, is this guy is mad when he writes, and in turn it makes you all worked up

What I responded to is what you said. What you said is pretty clear. Absolutely, my mind is made up. God does not lie. He told us he created the world. He charged the Church with the duty to teach he truth and promised to protect the Church from all error in Faith and morals - to the end of time. The Church has Infallibly declared that God created the world in time out of nothing ( from no prior existing matter of any kind, no waves, no worm holes, mathematical formulas, zero anything, period). All Catholics are required to give the Assent of Faith to all Infallible teachings and Religious Assent to all ordinary teachings of the Magisterium ( i.e. everything in the Catechism not declared Infallible).( CCC, pars 888 & following).

Those, identifying themselves as Catholic, who come here advocating or suggesting some teaching of the Church is wrong or does not have to be believed are causing scandal among the faithful. They should not identify themselves as Catholics if they are going to do these things. They are no better than so called Catholics who advocate abortion, contraception, etc.

What these folks should do is go back and revise their religious affiliation so that they will not be identified as Catholic. That way they will just be wrong, they will not be giving scandal, at least not so seriously.

Linus2nd

 

[zro_x]

Those, identifying themselves as Catholic, who come here advocating or suggesting some teaching of the Church is wrong or does not have to be believed are causing scandal among the faithful.

I suppose you are addressing people like me here. I suppose I did give the impression that I believe what I wrote, so let me correct my mistake and try to make myself more clear. I was not advocating or suggesting that any teaching of the church is false. I simply gave other possible explanations which are logically coherrent, in addition to the logically coherent explanation that God created the universe from nothing. I don’t think we know, from a cosmological standpoint, which is a better explanation for the origins of the universe. If there is a good reason why either explanation is impossible, I have yet to hear it.

The Church has Infallibly declared that God created the world in time out of nothing ( from no prior existing matter of any kind, no waves, no worm holes, mathematical formulas, zero anything, period). All Catholics are required to give the Assent of Faith to all Infallible teachings and Religious Assent to all ordinary teachings of the Magisterium ( i.e. everything in the Catechism not declared Infallible).( CCC, pars 888 & following).

There are some models of a necessary universe that I think are consistent with the idea that God created the universe out of nothing. I could elaborate on this if anyone is interested.

They should not identify themselves as Catholics if they are going to do these things. They are no better than so called Catholics who advocate abortion, contraception, etc.

I think there is a big difference between debating over the rational basis for abortion and contraception, and actually advising others to commit these acts or committing them yourself. “Religious Assent”, to my mind, is adopting the magisterial teachings in practice, even if you don’t understand why those practices were put into place and even doubt if non-infallible tachings are true.

As Catholics, I think we need to critically examine the teachings we are given, even as we carry the teachings out in practice. This method has been useful in the past for coming to know God more fully and accurately. In fact, I think most of the theological progress we have has come about by questioning the standing teachings of the church.