Could the Universe have Created Itself?

[Aloysium]

. . . “love is the perfection of relationship.” Do you mean “mutual love”? Or do you mean only one party must love? Is there a gradation of perfection in love?

In the Garden, Adam and Eve were in love with each other and God.
Once sin entered the picture, blaming one another, the self could no longer trust the other.
Eve turns to Adam seeking love, but as distant other, she is now a threat.
Genesis 3: " . . . Your yearning will be for your husband, and he will dominate you. . . "
The self to protect itself from the other must dominate.
In this world, as other to your self, I will at some level fear you.
In mutual surrender and union, love, the relationship is perfected.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Parts of the book are online, including that part. I read some pages. It seems to be aimed at making the chattering classes feel good about themselves by mocking others - the cutting edge of science is hard, so let’s sit around and poke fun at those trying to face the difficulties.

Your hero Feynman is one of those criticizing the over exuberance of some of these Physicists .

Linus2nd

 

[Mount_Carmel]

Back to the Thread Question, ‘Could the Universe have Created itself’?

Creation as in meaning ‘something from and of nothing’ is a logical and rational impossibility, since Nothing cannot ‘create’ Something from Nothing.

There needs to be some [always] prior existence, something that was/is always there - an acaused constant of awesome potential and actuality.

 

[inocente]

Back to the Thread Question, ‘Could the Universe have Created itself’?

Creation as in meaning ‘something from and of nothing’ is a logical and rational impossibility, since Nothing cannot ‘create’ Something from Nothing.

There needs to be some [always] prior existence, something that was/is always there - an acaused constant of awesome potential and actuality.

Except for those who disagree, otherwise this thread wouldn’t have lasted since September.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Except for those who disagree, otherwise this thread wouldn’t have lasted since September.

Trying here to figure out why you disagree.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Trying here to figure out why you disagree.

 

[Tomdstone]

Read the book I recommended, then see what you think.

I then pointed out the mockery of Our Lord’s prayer in the book and this is what Linus wrote:

Oh come on, that is stretching things.

I don’t believe so. I would not recommend a book that supports Richard Dawkins. The author writes (on page 167) that “we must be thankful to Dawkins for debunking the Intelligent Design baloney with all its powerful relatives.” Dawkins as everyone knows, is a biologist and an atheist.

 

[JamesCaruso]

Back to the Thread Question, ‘Could the Universe have Created itself’?

Creation as in meaning ‘something from and of nothing’ is a logical and rational impossibility, since Nothing cannot ‘create’ Something from Nothing.

There needs to be some [always] prior existence, something that was/is always there - an acaused constant of awesome potential and actuality.

I gather from some of the posts in this thread that many do not really mean to ask did the universe create itself from nothing, but more in the vein that something existed, maybe a highly compressed ball of matter or energy, and then something happened, perhaps within this mass that caused the “big bang”, if you will. I’m not defending the idea, but I think it’s what some scientists are toying with. In this kind of scenario, I suppose the premise is that something always existed, be it matter or energy or something else. They could be saying that the universe is constantly expanding, then contracting, then expanding again, for no apparent reason, a sort of perpetual motion, I mean, what other choices do you have if you rule out the possibility of there being a God? Gee! Isn’t it so much easier and more plausible to believe there is a God who is the first cause? But no, apparently not for those so disposed as to deny the existence of God.

 

[JamesCaruso]

I don’t believe so. I would not recommend a book that supports Richard Dawkins. The author writes (on page 167) that “we must be thankful to Dawkins for debunking the Intelligent Design baloney with all its powerful relatives.” Dawkins as everyone knows, is a biologist and an atheist.

Yup! He’s one mixed up fellow.

 

[Tomdstone]

They could be saying that the universe is constantly expanding, then contracting, then expanding again, for no apparent reason, a sort of perpetual motion…

I thought that perpetual motion without any (name removed by moderator)ut from an external energy source, would be ruled out by several physical laws, including the conservation of energy, the laws of thermodynamics, and Noether’s theorem applied to time symmetry.

 

[JamesCaruso]

I thought that perpetual motion without any (name removed by moderator)ut from an external energy source, would be ruled out by several physical laws, including the conservation of energy, the laws of thermodynamics, and Noether’s theorem applied to time symmetry.

One would think so, but isn’t that why Dawkins gets so cagey, IMO, and fuzzy when he talks about it. He can’t admit to the existence of God, so his options are quite limited. It’s either a universe perpetually in motion or a universe that can bring itself into existence from some lump of highly compressed “stuff.” To me, his theories make a good case for God, so improbable-- no impossible-- are they!

 

[inocente]

Trying here to figure out why you disagree.

Logically, either (a) you’re wrong but you didn’t know that I agree because you haven’t read the thread, or (b) you’re right but you don’t know why I disagree because you haven’t read the thread.

Which is it? How can you tell? If only there was some kind of clue here about how you can find out?

 

[inocente]

Dawkins as everyone knows, is a biologist

A biologist? Whatever next? I take it you’re a geologist to have such an aversion to biologists.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Originally Posted by Mount Carmel
Back to the Thread Question, ‘Could the Universe have Created itself’?

Creation as in meaning ‘something from and of nothing’ is a logical and rational impossibility, since Nothing cannot ‘create’ Something from Nothing.

There needs to be some [always] prior existence, something that was/is always there - an acaused constant of awesome potential and actuality.

Except for those who disagree, otherwise this thread wouldn’t have lasted since September.

Trying here to figure out why you disagree.

Logically, either (a) you’re wrong but you didn’t know that I agree because you haven’t read the thread, or (b) you’re right but you don’t know why I disagree because you haven’t read the thread.

Which is it? How can you tell? If only there was some kind of clue here about how you can find out?

Perhaps because your position is so complicated and “nuanced” that no one but you really gets what it is. I have followed this thread and your “position” quite loyally and still don’t really get what it is. Why don’t you do us all a favour and clearly state what it is?

Here is what my impression of what your position amounts to.

1. You have defended Krauss, so you seem to agree with him that a universe “from nothing” is possible. Meaning, as incredibly illogical as it sounds, that nothing can create a universe.
2. If 1) is true then God is superfluous and unnecessary with regards to universe generation.
3. You do believe that God exists or, at least, seem to imply that much in your postings.

The source of confusion would appear to stem from your lack of having “reasons” for believing that God exists, since all your argumentation seems to advocate atheistic conclusions that God is unnecessary and creation is self-sufficient, yet you hold that God does exist for no apparent reason.

For the benefit of Charlemagne III, and everyone else who, I think, are legitimately confused by your position, rather than merely state you agree (without clearly identifying what it is that you “agree” to, why don’t you provide a kind of “summation” of your position so we can gain some kind of “solid ground” from which to determine the logic of your position rather than being left to the Promethean task of determining the logic of an undefined or vaguely defined one that seems to generate and live only within the confines of your cerebral regions where eagles fear to tread.

 

[Phil_Marinus]

Could the universe be a beat up by the news multi national because it helps to sell news items ? And Hollywood… For there science fiction movies…
Is the Universe even there ?

 

[Tomdstone]

A biologist? Whatever next? I take it you’re a geologist to have such an aversion to biologists.

Of course, there is nothing wrong with being an ethologist and a biologist, as these are respectable and honorable areas of study. However, being a professional in the areas of biology and ethology would not, IMHO, make you an expert in cosmology and the origin of the universe.

 

[tonyrey]

Scientifically and observationally informed.

Where is the evidence?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The source of confusion would appear to stem from your lack of having “reasons” for believing that God exists, since all your argumentation seems to advocate atheistic conclusions that God is unnecessary and creation is self-sufficient, yet you hold that God does exist for no apparent reason.

For the benefit of Charlemagne III, and everyone else who, I think, are legitimately confused by your position, rather than merely state you agree (without clearly identifying what it is that you “agree” to, why don’t you provide a kind of “summation” of your position so we can gain some kind of “solid ground” from which to determine the logic of your position rather than being left to the Promethean task of determining the logic of an undefined or vaguely defined one that seems to generate and live only within the confines of your cerebral regions where eagles fear to tread.

I’d like to second that.

 

[Phil_Marinus]

Where in the Bible does it prove the Universe even exists ?

 

[afungusamongus]

Where is the evidence?

HERE! Ask and you shall receive!