Could the Universe have Created Itself?

[1AugustSon7]

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.

Okay ignoring your inflammatory rhetoric please realize that the whole point is that nothingness does not exist. In no sense does nothing “exist”, which is why it cannot be the cause of anything at all: there is no-thing there to actually cause anything. Hence it is impossible that something should come from nothing or be in any way produced by nothing. The universe is either somehow eternal or it was created by God in (and with) time, if we understand the universe as the totality of all physical things.

 

[inocente]

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.

Not sure what you mean by outside. There is no outside.

 

[inocente]

Okay ignoring your inflammatory rhetoric please realize that the whole point is that nothingness does not exist. In no sense does nothing “exist”, which is why it cannot be the cause of anything at all: there is no-thing there to actually cause anything. Hence it is impossible that something should come from nothing or be in any way produced by nothing. The universe is either somehow eternal or it was created by God in (and with) time, if we understand the universe as the totality of all physical things.

I was being told (an apparently still am ) that nothing is a concept so difficult that it needs explaining, whereas monkeys and some preschool children get the idea: brannonlab.org.s84504.gridserver.com/wp-content/uploads/MerrittBrannon2013.pdf

The concept of nothing, the concept no thing, the concept of the absence of thing is in math terms the empty set {}. The question is whether conjecturing a state or world or condition which consists only of the empty set is any more reasonable than conjecturing little pink Klingon unicorns scampering around a moon made of green cheese. The only alternative, as you say, seems to be an eternal universe. Both concepts bend the brain, and whatever our personal beliefs neither is obviously correct or obviously wrong. imho

 

[TheKingdomOfGod]

I find the idea that the universe created itself goes against all established science. Whether or not you believe in God, a god-like figure must have initially created the universe. After that point he may have allowed certain things to take their course, but the initial creation of the universe had to have come from God.

 

[meltzerboy]

I find the idea that the universe created itself goes against all established science. Whether or not you believe in God, a god-like figure must have initially created the universe. After that point he may have allowed certain things to take their course, but the initial creation of the universe had to have come from God.

And doesn’t the idea that a Supreme Being who Himself was never created, was able to create the universe ex nihilo also go against all established science? Either way, I don’t think we’re talking science here unless science endorses the idea that the universe ALWAYS existed in one form or another and self-creation was therefore unnecessary.

 

[Linux]

And doesn’t the idea that a Supreme Being who Himself was never created, was able to create the universe ex nihilo also go against all established science?

It doesn’t go against science; rather the truth value of the claim is simply irrelevant to the questions that science as a method asks. Metaphysics and Science are not competing epistemologies. Science deals with physical reality in particular as it exists, and does not have in its epistemological capacity to ask or describe how or why physical reality in general begins to exist from absolutely nothing. Metaphysics deal with the act of reality in general; being as being and does not ask if some particular kind of physical being exists and what its powers are in relation to other physical objects.

The question “why something rather than nothing” is not a scientific question to begin with.

There is no possible empirical test that can validate an inductive inference regarding the ontological necessity of physical reality in general. That is a myth, and is in actual fact metaphysical naturalism posing as a science, just like Intelligent design theory poses as a science.

I think you guys don’t really understand what it means to do peer review science, epistemologically speaking.

In fact i might start a thread discussing what science can or can’t say about physical reality.

 

[meltzerboy]

It doesn’t go against science; rather the truth value of the claim is simply irrelevant to the questions that science as a method asks. Metaphysics and Science are not competing epistemologies. Science deals with physical reality in particular as it exists, and does not have in its epistemological capacity to ask or describe how or why physical reality in general begins to exist from absolutely nothing. Metaphysics deal with the act of reality in general; being as being and does not ask if some particular kind of physical being exists and what its powers are in relation to other physical objects.

The question “why something rather than nothing” is not a scientific question to begin with.

There is no possible empirical test that can validate an inductive inference regarding the ontological necessity of physical reality in general. That is a myth, and is in actual fact metaphysical naturalism posing as a science, just like Intelligent design theory poses as a science.

I think you guys don’t really understand what it means to do peer review science, epistemologically speaking.

In fact i might start a thread discussing what science can or can’t say about physical reality.

As an experimental psychologist, I am aware of this. Yes, of course you are correct: we are discussing apples and oranges by comparing science and metaphysics. I was simply responding to the previous poster by repeating the phrase they used.

 

[Paddy_Walker]

Not sure what you mean by outside. There is no outside.

Thats what I’m saying. Thats nothing.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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…

Yeh, those little wave thingies. They can reduce them to half waves ( if you can believe what they say ) but they can’t get rid of them . Maybe they are what Aristotle meant by Prime Matter ( my apologies to all metapysics haters here ). Or perhaps they are the first manifestatin of that Ultimate Matter, the original foot print of God. Hey, if scientists can fantisize so can I.

Linus2nd

 

[Mount_Carmel]

It seems to come down to the question - did ‘something’ that is extra-science {outside of science] kick off all the laws and substance of science; or are the laws and substance of science eternal/infinite in nature?

There is an addendum question - did this ‘exra-science’ ‘being/entity’ create from nothing, or is all that is [directly and/or indirectly] OF ‘it’?

IMHO it comes down in the end to what ‘we’ choose to believe - whether ‘we’ just go as far as our physical senses will stretch to, or whether ‘we’ choose to go that extra step and explore the likes of probability and even possibility.

If ‘we’ believe in a God, then do ‘we’ limit ‘Him’ to what ‘we’ can comprehend, or is ‘He’ greater than our comprehension?

 

[oneofmany]

No one explained how nothing could suddenly do something.

Have you seen Ben Stein’s movie----“Expellled, no Intellegence Allowed”? You can watch the whole movie online. Anyway, in the final scene he is asking the main question of an atheist. How did everything get here then and the final answer was----WE DON’T KNOW. lol

 

[Mount_Carmel]

No one explained how nothing could suddenly do something.

Have you seen Ben Stein’s movie----“Expellled, no Intellegence Allowed”? You can watch the whole movie online. Anyway, in the final scene he is asking the main question of an atheist. How did everything get here then and the final answer was----WE DON’T KNOW. lol

Yup, here in Yorkshire we have a very old saying - ‘Thee gets owt{nothing] for nowt{nothing] and very little for a ha’penny{half a penny].’

I am reminded of a scenario where all the philosophers and scientists are arguing amongst themselves while climbing the rock strewn slope that is knowledge, and when they finally get to the summit there is God sitting beside a banner bearing the words ‘What kept you?’

 

[1AugustSon7]

I was being told (an apparently still am ) that nothing is a concept so difficult that it needs explaining, whereas monkeys and some preschool children get the idea: brannonlab.org.s84504.gridserver.com/wp-content/uploads/MerrittBrannon2013.pdf

The concept of nothing, the concept no thing, the concept of the absence of thing is in math terms the empty set {}. The question is whether conjecturing a state or world or condition which consists only of the empty set is any more reasonable than conjecturing little pink Klingon unicorns scampering around a moon made of green cheese.

Okay innocente: the next time a thief breaks into your house and steals your furniture, you be sure to sit quiet and nod your head as the police officer tells you how silly you are in conjuring up the idea of the complete absence of some thing. Patiently wait while he explains to you that he will not investigate your alleged missing furniture anymore than he would investigate the sighting of a pink Klingon unicorn, because the very notion of the absence of something is just plain silliness to him.

 

[inocente]

Okay innocente: the next time a thief breaks into your house and steals your furniture, you be sure to sit quiet and nod your head as the police officer tells you how silly you are in conjuring up the idea of the absence of some thing. Patiently wait while he explains to you that he will not investigate your alleged missing furniture anymore than he would investigate the sighting of a pink Klingon unicorn, because the very notion of the absence of something is just plain silliness to him.

Perhaps you don’t understand the concept of nothing.

The fact that the furniture is missing does not mean it turned into nothing. It is still around somewhere, just not where it used to be. Even if a bomb was put under the furniture, it would still not be nothing, it would still be around as dust.

It you understand that nothing is not the same as stuff being someplace else, I guess you didn’t understand what I wrote.

The claim I am questioning is no furniture, no thief, no house, no you, no me, no world, no space, no time, no anything, ziltch, zap, nada. This is very different from your example of a world, with you, with me, with the house, with the thief, with the furniture but not where I left it.

Do you see the difference? If so, then granted we can imagine such a state of no universe, of totally nothingness. But just because we can imagine it doesn’t make it any more reasonable than little pink Klingon unicorns scampering around a moon made of green cheese.

Doth thou gettest it now?

 

[1AugustSon7]

Perhaps you don’t understand the concept of nothing.

I am not the one granting causal powers to nothing or confusing it with something.

 

[1AugustSon7]

If so, then granted we can imagine such a state of no universe, of totally nothingness.

You can’t “imagine” nothingness: the imagination deals with corporeal things.

But just because we can imagine it

We can’t.

doesn’t make it any more reasonable than little pink Klingon unicorns…

I agree: since you are trying to imagine nothingness, you are doing something about as reasonable as imagining that little pink Klingon unicorns actually existed, except worse.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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 ?

I like that Slaney. It’s true the world is full of idiots and fools. It’s bad enough to be ignorant or just simple. But fools and idiots are man made .

Linus2nd

 

[Iron_Donkey]

I was being told (an apparently still am ) that nothing is a concept so difficult that it needs explaining, whereas monkeys and some preschool children get the idea: brannonlab.org.s84504.gridserver.com/wp-content/uploads/MerrittBrannon2013.pdf

The concept of nothing, the concept no thing, the concept of the absence of thing is in math terms the empty set {}. The question is whether conjecturing a state or world or condition which consists only of the empty set is any more reasonable than conjecturing little pink Klingon unicorns scampering around a moon made of green cheese. The only alternative, as you say, seems to be an eternal universe. Both concepts bend the brain, and whatever our personal beliefs neither is obviously correct or obviously wrong. imho

Except in math world, the empty set, {} is a thing. Nothing is that which is contained within the empty set, all of those objects separated by commas between the braces.

But notice that there are no objects there at all. No laws. No potential. No matter. Nothing that can do anything.

Here is a test: If it can do something, then it is not nothing. If there was ever nothing, then there would always be nothing, because if there is nothing then there is, by that test, no thing that can do anything.

And it’s worse than that. Because you might step back and say “yes, so nothing can’t do anything, but if you put braces around it and get the set which contains nothing, you now have a thing, and maybe that thing could do something.” But the problem is that if there was truly nothing, then there’d be no braces to put around it either. If you truly have nothing, you don’t have the empty set either, because that is a thing. There would be no empty set, not even the concept of emptiness (for that is a thing which describes other things), there would only be .

The idea that something can come from nothing is fundamentally flawed. It says “there is nothing. Now, assume it does…” But it can’t. Because it isn’t there. Nothingness is completely stable (change is a thing).

This seems to suggest that pure total nothingness is inherently contradictory (given, that is, that the idea of putting braces around things makes sense), that there must at least be existence, a possible thingness even if there are no things to possess the property. And so starts the journey to God.

 

[wanstronian]

For those who think the universe is too complicated to have created itself, I point out that saying “God did it” simply defers the problem. Who, or what, created God? It’s not good enough to simply assert that God is the uncaused cause or whatever, because that is just special pleading. You don’t get to just make something up to justify your belief. Well, not if you want to maintain credibility.

I voted “Yes.” The correct, but missing poll option was, “We have no way of knowing, but we have no evidence that it was created by something else.”

 

[meltzerboy]

Except in math world, the empty set, {} is a thing. Nothing is that which is contained within the empty set, all of those objects separated by commas between the braces.

But notice that there are no objects there at all. No laws. No potential. No matter. Nothing that can do anything.

Here is a test: If it can do something, then it is not nothing. If there was ever nothing, then there would always be nothing, because if there is nothing then there is, by that test, no thing that can do anything.

And it’s worse than that. Because you might step back and say “yes, so nothing can’t do anything, but if you put braces around it and get the set which contains nothing, you now have a thing, and maybe that thing could do something.” But the problem is that if there was truly nothing, then there’d be no braces to put around it either. If you truly have nothing, you don’t have the empty set either, because that is a thing. There would be no empty set, not even the concept of emptiness (for that is a thing which describes other things), there would only be .

The idea that something can come from nothing is fundamentally flawed. It says “there is nothing. Now, assume it does…” But it can’t. Because it isn’t there. Nothingness is completely stable (change is a thing).

This seems to suggest that pure total nothingness is inherently contradictory (given, that is, that the idea of putting braces around things makes sense), that there must at least be existence, a possible thingness even if there are no things to possess the property. And so starts the journey to God.

Perhaps then nothing is an “empty” concept when applied to the universe? IOW, might it be that there was always something in the universe so that it did not have to be created but instead just kept changing from one form, consisting of matter and energy, to another?