Could the Universe have Created Itself?

[JohnMichaels]

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

That was deep man. I respect that. You stand firm if you want.
But like, then why ask the question? In the OP you ask the question, then answer it as no. So, you created the threat to see if anyone disagreed, so you could tell them they aren’t Catholic?

A devious idea. I approve

PS - on the other parts of the interwebs not this website, we call that “trolling” look it up

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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.

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.

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.

Thank you.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

That was deep man. I respect that. You stand firm if you want.
But like, then why ask the question? In the OP you ask the question, then answer it as no. So, you created the threat to see if anyone disagreed, so you could tell them they aren’t Catholic?

A devious idea. I approve

PS - on the other parts of the interwebs not this website, we call that “trolling” look it up

Not really, I was just offering it for discussion. Those who say it could have no proof that such a thing is possible. I was aware however that many Catholics are actually unaware that God and the Church have spoken on this issue and many others as well. I am absolutely astonished at the ignorance of many Catholics about their faith. We have had an excellent Catechism out now since about 1983 now, it is time that Catholics devote as much time to learning their faith as watching several hours of worthless T.V., etc each week ( more likely daily).

Thanks

Linus2nd

 

[BOSS10L]

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.

Yeah, it’s called Pascals Wager. And I have news: based on the God of the Bible, do you really think he’d be cool with people believing “just in case he’s real?” I’d wager not. (See what I did there?)

 

[BOSS10L]

Why would God create a man with attractions that impede his nature as a man? Yeah and some people are born with no arms or legs, maybe that’s their identity too.

If religion has no monopoly on human sexuality then neither do you. The idea that living a homosexual life is “being who they were born to be” is your belief and is as much a belief as any other.

And i agree with you, that the state should not legislate in favor of some particular belief over others if it cannot be proven on secular grounds that a particular belief and its expression causes harm to society. Thus i think people who embrace the gay identity should be aloud to express it publicly. However the gay identity should not be forced on to people either. The idea that it is natural or moral should not enter into the legal definition of homosexuality or gay rights anymore than the claim that it is unnatural or immoral. Its a belief and a lifestyle choice.

What about all the people who chose not to live a gay lifestyle because they value their nature as men and women? Who are you to tell them they are wrong or that they ought to live gay?

Also, i assume that people who live a gay lifestyle truly believe its okay, so why would they go to hell for what they don’t know to be wrong?

Well, first, God didn’t create those people. They are deviations from the norm in the evolution of our species. If being gay is as genetically acceptable as being straight, then it would be your God’s fault for creating them, and creating a universe where they can exist.

I don’t think that straight people should have ‘gayness’ pushed on them, not any more than I think gay people should have ‘straightness’ pushed on them. Any married member here is no more having their relationship threatened by gay marriage than they are by the sale of carrots at the local grocery store.

People don’t choose to be gay or trans. They just are. I’m not even saying that it’s right per se, because as I stated, they are deviations from the evolutionary path. But I do believe that they should be given the same rights as everyone else. In a society where over half of all hetero marriages end in divorce, who cares if same-sex couples want to marry?

 

[Slaney]

Only a supreme being created life on earth, created it self ? bloody hell i’m surrounded by idiots, so why haven’t the other planets sprouted life ?

 

[BOSS10L]

Some people are also born with genetic predisposition to sociopathic and pedophilic tendencies.

I accept that existing as created would not in my mind be a sin (but I cannot know God’s mind).

I also cannot know how God will judge the sociopath who commits murder or the man who rapes a child (perhaps they could not control themselves). I do believe tho that to at least an extent someone must take responsibility for their actions. This same reasoning would, as I understand it, also apply to the catholic church’s teachings on homosexuality. I think a lot of people paraphrase this as “love the sinner, hate the sin”. I don’t know if I accept that characterization. I don’t know what God thinks on the matter. I make an observation.

On a purely human level, I also do not accept that these actions are maybe merely choices between consenting adults that do not affect me. For example, promiscuity, whether hetero- or homo-, is the driving factor in the propagation of STD’s. This effects me whether by costing me money, tainting the blood supply or by breeding super-bugs while attempting to treat patients with compromised immune systems.

Note that I am overweight. Perhaps I have a genetic predisposition to it. Regardless, I feel myself responsible for the effects of this on society (and there are effects…). God gave me a body to be a steward of. Am I doing a good job?

That’s a weak argument. Gay people aren’t inherently hurting anyone else. Your examples are much different.

What about all the committed same-sex couples who aren’t promiscuous? Look it up, gay couples are statistically more likely to stay together and not cheat than straight ones are. And hey, I know gays are, like, sub-humans and all that, but I know a few couples that have foster-parented or adopted kids who otherwise would have had to live in ****** situations brought about by their straight sperm/egg donors.

This is just another wrinkle in society. Once the Irish, Italians, etc were looked at as inferior for whatever moronic reasons. In another who knows how many years we’ll look back and say the same thing about gay and trans people.

 

[BOSS10L]

Only a supreme being created life on earth, created it self ? bloody hell i’m surrounded by idiots, so why haven’t the other planets sprouted life ?

We don’t know that there isn’t life on other planets. Mars is the only one we’ve been able to explore with any real validity. I would argue that it’s almost a mathematical certainty that other life exists elsewhere in the universe. It may not be sentient, but it exists.

Besides, the jury’s still out. We’re not even 100% sure we’re native to this planet. We may have hitched a ride from another planet, comet, or meteors during the early days of the universe/solar system.

 

[Phil_Marinus]

One of the down sides of this and related threads , they get so bogged down in Theory ,
Plus in depth religious belief … Plus people almost write a book length reply…
So many things are possible, there was an experiment to find an environment in which there was absolutely 100% Nothing… A large aluminium room was built which they withdrew
All air,dust,light everything they possibly could, then conducted tests to prove that they has succeeded in producing 100% of absolute nothing… Well try as hard as they could,
They failed, they still had subatomic partials … So could this prove that something apart from God could have produced something out of what appeared to be nothing ?
No one will ever know for sure, we were not around to take notes…
Just have faith… Blessed are those that have not seen but yet believe…

 

[Phil_Marinus]

Only a supreme being created life on earth, created it self ? bloody hell i’m surrounded by idiots, so why haven’t the other planets sprouted life ?

Simple answer, we just don’t have the ability to travel to other stars to check…
Just because other stars may have life bearing Planets , they may not have the interest or ability to check us out… Humans have only just become Abel to look beyond the moon with any great detail…

 

[1AugustSon7]

from what I’ve surmised, matter can indeed be created from “nothing.” Atoms can indeed be in two places at once, meaning they exist and don’t exist at the same time.

Welcome to the real Dark Age.

 

[1AugustSon7]

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!).

Sure thing Hume.

 

[ServantPD]

From the way this universe work (especially on a cause-effect chain, orderly function that obeys laws and no possible way that everything came from nothing, as even quantum vaccum doesn’t quite work that way), it’s rather rationally/logically impossible to have formed on its own. And rationality has worked to most of the laws of physics and of the natural sciences, therefore there must be a transcendent Creator of it in the equation of its existence.

 

[1AugustSon7]

quantum fluctuations are observed to produce something from nothing for at least a finite period of time.

Alright slow down here.

You said:

quantum fluctuations * are observed * to produce * something from nothing for at least a finite period of time.

Okay, so something [quantum fluctuations] produces something else [effect]. Moreover, the cause is observable** (“are observed”) and therefore physical. So the only mystey remaining here is what you mean by “from nothing” seeing as this is observered !] to happen in space, which is something and, moreover, presumably must also be there [exsist] for the ‘somethings’ to be ‘produced’ in by the alleged cause ‘quantum fluctuations’].

Can quantum fluctuations exist absent any space? Could they produce yonder ‘somethings’ absent space to do it in? Are there no necessary prerequisites (which presmuably would be the matter being acted on by a remarkable efficient cause “quantum fluctuations”]) for this effect to occur?

Or is it simply that quantum fluctuations have the power to turn space into something else? Striking as that is, we haven’t collapsed back into superstition and magic quite yet - but the way you are talking it sure sounds like we are.

But if you are claiming that there is absolutely no underlying matter being changed by the physical efficient cause and, morever, that this efficient cause acts randomly and completey on a whim absolutely - then you are, in my opinion, quite possibly guilty of superstition.*

 

[Paddy_Walker]

I think they say 95% or more, of the universe is composed of dark matter and dark energy. That is, energy and even more strangely matter which cannot be seen or interacted with. It is just inferred matter and energy. Quantum fluctuations, whatever they are, could be just one of endless explanations for matter appearing and apparently annihilating, as dark matter cannot interact with matter as we know it yet it is necessary to cause the universe to move as we see it move. So it must have some interaction sometimes. Perhaps these particles you are seeing appearing and disappearing are part of the missing 95% of the universes matter and energy.

 

[inocente]

i thought ‘nothing’ referred to the time before the big bang, that is, the time before time and space.

The big bang theory says the universe was once very small. It doesn’t and can’t say how the universe got that way because the physics breaks down. If there was a “before” then all evidence of it got destroyed by the extreme conditions in the bang.

 

[inocente]

**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?

Yes. Once we are certain we are right, we never question our beliefs and we think everyone who disagrees with us is wrong. Which would make us what the dictionary defines as a bigot.

 

[inocente]

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.

You managed to take a comment about your post as somehow being aimed at all Catholics. Nope, bro, you are not the Pope, my comment was aimed squarely at you alone.

If you look at your post #120 which I was responding to, you said nothing about my post or Krauss’ explanation in the video I linked, instead you went off and found a quote on his atheist views so you could ignore the science and attack him as a person. Pure ad hominem.

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

Yikes. I linked his CV before. Do a Ctrl + F and look for the word cosmology, then look for the word astrophysics. You’ll find he even helped write the US high school syllabus on cosmology. You could also look at his blurb here - sese.asu.edu/person/lawrence-krauss

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) ?

Only fundamentalist fanatics are absolutely certain. They will have to fight their religious wars without me.

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.

You’re entirely unsurprising, I know for sure that your next post will be a string of personal comments and ad hominems because you’re never done anything else.

*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. " *

Yes, we all comprehend what nothing means, it’s very simple. It’s also easy to imagine a moon made of green cheese, grazed by little pink unicorns which speak perfect Klingon. The question is whether either of these concepts, nothing or Klingon unicorns, could exist outside of our imagination.

And since we now know, with certainty, that empty space is far from nothing, there is nowhere in reality where there is nothing, so a belief in nothing can only be described as blind faith.

 

[inocente]

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.

Yes, we can only see through human eyes, and one thing humans are very good at is dividing the world into things and then investing those things with essences or forms, even little children can do that effortlessly. We can become so certain of those essences that we forget we made them up. The hardest thing about quantum physics is that none of the essences we can dream up actually explain what’s going on, the world on that scale is too far away from us, every analogy fails us.

To me it’s cool that most of the mass of an atom is in the space between the quarks. It would be really cool if it turns out that the quarks and electrons are also just space and time wrapped up in different ways. That would be the end to the belief that essences and substances are primal. Instead we would have to recognize that in some way everything is everything. Without everything being how it is, nothing would be as it is. Everything has its time and place, which is biblical - there’s a time to be born and a time to die, a time to plant and a time to uproot. And good always wins in the end, which reminds me of a Christian who sang of this philosophy:

Lauryn Hill - Everything Is Everything

 

[Paddy_Walker]

The big bang theory says the universe was once very small. It doesn’t and can’t say how the universe got that way because the physics breaks down. If there was a “before” then all evidence of it got destroyed by the extreme conditions in the bang.

The universe is space and time, right? So, when the universe, and space and time, were not yet expanded and formed, what was outside that embryonic point-sized universe? My answer would be nothing.