Could the Universe have Created Itself?

[Oreoracle]

It seems that this thread got off-topic at some point.

To address the OP, the question is a false dichotomy. Perhaps the universe has always existed and wasn’t created at all.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . the question is a false dichotomy. Perhaps the universe has always existed and wasn’t created at all.

Dichotomy involving the universe and what? Nothing?
I am not sure what you mean.
Then the question arises in my mind as to what has led you qualify this dichotomy as false?

You say “perhaps”.
If it has not always existed, how would it cause itself to come into being?
If the universe has always existed, then it did not create itself.
So you vote “no”.

 

[Oreoracle]

Dichotomy involving the universe and what? Nothing?
I am not sure what you mean.
Then the question arises in my mind as to what has led you qualify this dichotomy as false?

The dichotomy is that the OP suggests that we only have two options: either God created the universe or it created itself. This is a false dichotomy because, as I said, the universe might have always existed. Thus there are more than two options.

If the universe has always existed, then it did not create itself.
So you vote “no”.

Right, but God couldn’t have created it either. We are given the choice of one creator or another. I choose neither because there might not have been a creator at all. “Neither” is not an option given in the poll, hence the false dichotomy.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Perhaps the universe has always existed and wasn’t created at all.

Then again, perhaps it didn’t always exist and was created.

The evidence points more to the latter than to the former. There is no evidence at all of the former.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

It seems that this thread got off-topic at some point.

To address the OP, the question is a false dichotomy. Perhaps the universe has always existed and wasn’t created at all.

If it ( for the sake of argument ) has always existed, then God would have been eternally creating it. The reason is that the universe cannot account for its own existence. Even you, who are representative of the highest form of evolution, cannot make one single hair grow on your head. So how could unintelligent matter account for its own existence?

Linus2nd

 

[Oreoracle]

Then again, perhaps it didn’t always exist and was created.

The evidence points more to the latter than to the former. There is no evidence at all of the former.

By all means, share this evidence with me.

If it ( for the sake of argument ) has always existed, then God would have been eternally creating it. The reason is that the universe cannot account for its own existence.

Sure it can, in the very same way that Christians believe God can account for his own existence. It’s the same assumption, just with one fewer entity involved. (Your explanation requires us to postulate God and suppose he’s eternal, whereas my explanation just assumes that something we already know exists is eternal.) In fact, this view would be preferable by Occam’s Razor.

 

[oldcelt]

By all means, share this evidence with me.

Sure it can, in the very same way that Christians believe God can account for his own existence. It’s the same assumption, just with one fewer entity involved. (Your explanation requires us to postulate God and suppose he’s eternal, whereas my explanation just assumes that something we already know exists is eternal.) In fact, this view would be preferable by Occam’s Razor.

Well said.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

By all means, share this evidence with me.

The Big Bang. Time begins with the Big Bang. So how was the universe not created?

Whereas you have not one scintillia (beyond a blind assumption without one ounce of proof - if you have it please supply it) that the universe is eternal.

Don’t offer me scientific possibilities. I want proof. There is none. Whereas there is proof that the universe began about 14 billion years ago.

By the way, how does Occam’s bloody razor stand up againt the Big Bang?

After all, every tool for cutting must have its natural limits. Or as Einstein put it, “Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.”

 

[Oreoracle]

The Big Bang. Time begins with the Big Bang. So how was the universe not created?

I’ve never heard a single scientist insist that the singularity which caused the Big Bang must have been created (because any “creator” would be beyond the realm of science by being outside the observable universe). Scientists are cautious about explaining anything that happened before the universe was a split-second old. We don’t know anything about the singularity before it started expanding for a split-second.

Besides, we’re talking about metaphysics, not temporal concerns. When Christians say God has always existed, they aren’t talking about time. They are saying that it isn’t necessary to account for God’s existence by appealing to another entity. I’m saying the same could have happened for the singularity, before “time” as we know it existed. Go ahead and quote a scientist who will disagree. You won’t find anything because claims about the causes of the universe are unfalsifiable.

Whereas you have not one scintillia (beyond a blind assumption without one ounce of proof - if you have it please supply it) that the universe is eternal.

Where is the proof that God is eternal? If that claim doesn’t require proof, why do I need proof here?

Don’t offer me scientific possibilities. I want proof. There is none. Whereas there is proof that the universe began about 14 billion years ago.

“Began” in the temporal sense, not the metaphysical sense. I’m saying that the universe doesn’t need another entity to explain its existence any more than God does.

 

[Peter_Plato]

By all means, share this evidence with me.

Sure it can, in the very same way that Christians believe God can account for his own existence. It’s the same assumption, just with one fewer entity involved. (Your explanation requires us to postulate God and suppose he’s eternal, whereas my explanation just assumes that something we already know exists is eternal.) In fact, this view would be preferable by Occam’s Razor.

Aseity cannot be ascribed to just any existent by fiat. I can’t merely claim that this cup in front of me accounts for its own existence because I say it must.

What is it about the universe that leads us to believe it “accounts” for its own existence? What properties inherent to “the universe” (space, time, matter energy) would plausibly entail that it MUST exist? Particularly since Big Bang cosmology points back to a time when space, time, matter and energy all came INTO existence. Are you proposing there is some other ineffable characteristic that could account for aseity?

The physical evidence seems to undermine your claim.

The claim that God does account for his own existence is a metaphysical or logical one deduced from characteristics such as omnipotence, existence as essence, etc.

You may not find these convincing, but at least, with regard to God there is metaphysical warrant for making a plausible claim for self-existence as required by the principle of sufficient reason as a metaphysical necessity.

To simply claim the universe might “self-exist” just 'cause seems ad hoc and lacking warrant.
Could you, at least, make a stab at a reason why the universe (space, time, matter and energy) might explain itself even though the evidence points to all of these coming into being 13.7 billion years ago?

It is not sufficient to claim the universe could be self-sufficient just to “one up” theological or metaphysical claims.

 

[Tomdstone]

Aseity cannot be ascribed to just any existent by fiat. I can’t merely claim that this cup in front of me accounts for its own existence because I say it must.

What is it about the universe that leads us to believe it “accounts” for its own existence? What properties inherent to “the universe” (space, time, matter energy) would plausibly entail that it MUST exist? Particularly since Big Bang cosmology points back to a time when space, time, matter and energy all came INTO existence. Are you proposing there is some other ineffable characteristic that could account for aseity?

The physical evidence seems to undermine your claim.

The claim that God does account for his own existence is a metaphysical or logical one deduced from characteristics such as omnipotence, existence as essence, etc.

You may not find these convincing, but at least, with regard to God there is metaphysical warrant for making a plausible claim for self-existence as required by the principle of sufficient reason as a metaphysical necessity.

To simply claim the universe might “self-exist” just 'cause seems ad hoc and lacking warrant.
Could you, at least, make a stab at a reason why the universe (space, time, matter and energy) might explain itself even though the evidence points to all of these coming into being 13.7 billion years ago?

It is not sufficient to claim the universe could be self-sufficient just to “one up” theological or metaphysical claims.

Would it be possible for the universe to be cyclical in nature, so that you would have a big bang, then expansion, then contraction, then another big bang, expansion, contraction, etc., occurring in cycles, one after another? Or does that entail a contradiction of some sort?

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

You may not find these convincing, but at least, with regard to God there is metaphysical warrant for making a plausible claim for self-existence as required by the principle of sufficient reason as a metaphysical necessity. To simply claim the universe might “self-exist” just 'cause seems ad hoc and lacking warrant.

You’re still applying two different standards. In metaphysics, you can invent any being you want, ascribe any attributes to that being you want, then use those attributes to “establish” yet another attribute (all “just 'cause”) to build a narrative unsupported by any actual evidence that an eternal deity created the universe yet you demand some objective, empirical evidence to support the self-existence of the cosmos?

 

[Oreoracle]

What is it about the universe that leads us to believe it “accounts” for its own existence?

I don’t necessarily believe that. But it is just as explanative as the idea that God created the universe and that God accounts for his own existence. As I said, it has the advantage of being simpler since we don’t need to assume the universe’s existence; we know it exists already.

What properties inherent to “the universe” (space, time, matter energy) would plausibly entail that it MUST exist? Particularly since Big Bang cosmology points back to a time when space, time, matter and energy all came INTO existence.

No, the Big Bang begins with a singularity. Thus it is assumed that matter (and therefore energy) has always been around, since the singularity had mass.

The claim that God does account for his own existence is a metaphysical or logical one deduced from characteristics such as omnipotence, existence as essence, etc.

What properties of God’s do we need to assume to establish his self-sustaining existence? I imagine they would be more complicated than my explanation requires, particularly because I don’t need to assume that the universe is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, etc. I just need to assume it’s eternal. Surely that is simpler than the rest combined?

It is not sufficient to claim the universe could be self-sufficient just to “one up” theological or metaphysical claims.

Sure it is. If it’s simpler and explains everything just as well, then why not?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Would it be possible for the universe to be cyclical in nature, so that you would have a big bang, then expansion, then contraction, then another big bang, expansion, contraction, etc., occurring in cycles, one after another? Or does that entail a contradiction of some sort?

According to Borde, Guthe and Valenkin:

Our argument shows that null and time-like geodesics are, in general, past-incomplete in inflationary models, whether or not energy conditions hold, provided only that the averaged expansion condition Hav > 0 holds along these past-directed geodesics. This is a stronger conclusion than the one arrived at in previous work [8] in that we have shown under reasonable assumptions that almost all causal geodesics, when extended to the past of an arbitrary point, reach the boundary of the inflating region of spacetime in a finite proper time (finite affine length, in the null case).

 

[Linusthe2nd]

You’re still applying two different standards. In metaphysics, you can invent any being you want, ascribe any attributes to that being you want, then use those attributes to “establish” yet another attribute (all “just 'cause”) to build a narrative unsupported by any actual evidence that an eternal deity created the universe yet you demand some objective, empirical evidence to support the self-existence of the cosmos?

Have you actually read Plato, Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, as opposed to sound bites from biased authors or commentators who have an ax to grind? Of course it takes work to examine things for yourself. Yet you grant to science the same type of reasoning, inference and deduction you deny to philosophy. Is that fair?

Now you are an intelligent person, a reasonable representative of the highest form of evolution, yet you cannot make a single hair grow on your head. You cannot make a single blade of grass. Yet you presume that pure matter, lacking intelligence, lacking mind, can account for the existence of the universe, that it has fashioned its laws, that it makes everything work, all without mind. Amazing! But very hard to believe, very hard to believe.

But if you want scientific proof that there was a Divine Revelation, that God does exist, that a Messiah was actually born and died then I challenge you to watch the " Star of Bethlehem, " here: youtube.com/watch?v=ff-Gp194XUU

Linus2nd

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Have you actually read Plato, Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, as opposed to sound bites from biased authors or commentators who have an ax to grind? Of course it takes work to examine things for yourself. Yet you grant to science the same type of reasoning, inference and deduction you deny to philosophy. Is that fair?

I have read all three and science does not require the presuppositions that metaphysics does. Metaphysics always hinges on at least one arbitrary premise which lacks supporting evidence, must be presumed to be true, and is declared immune to criticism or refutation. Science, on the other hand, hinges on a trail of empirical evidence which, in this field, typically ends in a mathematical proof. The reasoning isn’t the same at all.

Now you are an intelligent person, a reasonable representative of the highest form of evolution, yet you cannot make a single hair grow on your head. You cannot make a single blade of grass. Yet you presume that pure matter, lacking intelligence, lacking mind, can account for the existence of the universe, that it has fashioned its laws, that it makes everything work, all without mind. Amazing! But very hard to believe, very hard to believe.

Thanks for compliment. I would say that scientific theories on the existence of the universe are not hard to believe; since there is empirical and mathematical evidence to support them. They are, however, difficult to understand.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I don’t necessarily believe that. But it is just as explanative as the idea that God created the universe and that God accounts for his own existence. As I said, it has the advantage of being simpler since we don’t need to assume the universe’s existence; we know it exists already.

The existence of the universe is not a logical deduction from what the universe is. The universe isn’t anything over and above space, time, matter and energy. Since all of these began to exist 13.7 billion years ago, existence isn’t integral to the universe. It could “not exist,” therefore it isn’t true that universe accounts for its own existence. Since existence is not logically entailed by anything about the universe there is no warrant for claiming it explains itself.

No, the Big Bang begins with a singularity. Thus it is assumed that matter (and therefore energy) has always been around, since the singularity had mass.

The singularity is a theoretical construct that, as far as I understand, does not have a temporal component. The singularity didn’t have duration but was rather the “blended” initial state from which space, time, matter and energy derived. It didn’t exist infinitely into past time since time resulted from it.

What properties of God’s do we need to assume to establish his self-sustaining existence? I imagine they would be more complicated than my explanation requires, particularly because I don’t need to assume that the universe is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, etc. I just need to assume it’s eternal. Surely that is simpler than the rest combined?

Sure it is. If it’s simpler and explains everything just as well, then why not?

The problem with “simpler” is that the logical requirement for sufficient must still obtain. Why should “simple,” of itself, have the capacity to bring forth a highly structured, highly defined, highly complex universe? How does simple satisfy the principle of sufficient reason? The effect must be explained by the cause. Omnipotent, omniscient Ipsum Esse Subsistens (aka God) posits an immaterial, eternal, self-existent Actus Purus to explain and power all the formal derivatives of matter, energy, space and time.

What does a “singularity” have to offer in terms of creative potential other than it was a pre-existent state? Merely “preceding” does not logically entail sufficiency. How does the singularity actually “explain” the universe as in being “a sufficient reason for” rather than merely “a precursor of?”

An egg does not, of itself, explain the chicken because the egg itself needs to be explained. It is not sufficient to claim the egg is simpler than the chicken, so therefore Occam’s razor eliminates the heavy lifting required by the principle of sufficient reason by cutting out the need to explain anything.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I have read all three and science does not require the presuppositions that metaphysics does. Metaphysics always hinges on at least one arbitrary premise which lacks supporting evidence, must be presumed to be true, and is declared immune to criticism or refutation. Science, on the other hand, hinges on a trail of empirical evidence which, in this field, typically ends in a mathematical proof. The reasoning isn’t the same at all.

Both assume the reality of a world outside the mind. Science uses tools to measure the activity of the components of matter and mathematics to predict and account for the physical structure of the world.Philosophy examines the underlaying source of matter, the causes that account for the activity of matter and what this means. To assume that science trumphs the value of philosophy is purely arbitrary.

Thanks for compliment. I would say that scientific theories on the existence of the universe are not hard to believe; since there is empirical and mathematical evidence to support them. They are, however, difficult to understand.

You didn’t answer all of my questions. Your choice is faith based. You don’t understand it, but assume, illogically, that these other men do.

You see more than I am able to see. I see evidence at all.

P.S. Watch the movie, its free, it is only an hour long. What have you got to loose? The author is not Catholic.

Linus2nd

 

[Peter_Plato]

You’re still applying two different standards. In metaphysics, you can invent any being you want, ascribe any attributes to that being you want, then use those attributes to “establish” yet another attribute (all “just 'cause”) to build a narrative unsupported by any actual evidence that an eternal deity created the universe yet you demand some objective, empirical evidence to support the self-existence of the cosmos?

It isn’t merely self-existence that is important. It is explanatory sufficiency that is. How does a singularity explain the intricate ordering capacity within the universe that eventually brings about the millions of life forms extent, at least, on the Earth?

It isn’t merely “invention” it is a matter of “accounting for.”

Empirical evidence deals with “the way it is,” whereas metaphysics attempts to explain WHY it is the way it is. We can empirically observe the effects of gravity, for example, but to explain why gravity has those certain effects requires a larger set of explanatory metaphysical and physical principles.

The initial “fine tuning” of the universe also requires explanation. How does a singularity without any definable properties bring about and fine tune at least thirty cosmological constants within very precise tolerances that enable the unfolding of the universe which, in turn, enables such phenomena as consciousness and intelligence?

It is a simple matter to posit the possibility of some existent, but the question is, What would be the point of doing so? How does it explain or account for anything?

Eternal omniscience goes a long way towards explaining the fine tuning of the cosmological constants, whereas a “singularity” seems singularly unhelpful.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Both assume the reality of a world outside the mind. Science uses tools to measure the activity of the components of matter and mathematics to predict and account for the physical structure of the world.Philosophy examines the underlaying source of matter, the causes that account for the activity of matter and what this means. To assume that science trumphs the value of philosophy is purely arbitrary.

I would argue that your view of philosophy is incorrect. Science does all of those things; physics does all of those things. Philosophy only exists to answer abstract questions and I agree with Stephen Hawking that philosophy is dead. The laws of physics have made it so.

You didn’t answer all of my questions. Your choice is faith based. You don’t understand it, but assume, illogically, that these other men do.

My choice is not based on faith; it is based on science. The two are mutually exclusive by their very definition.

You see more than I am able to see. I see evidence at all.P.S. Watch the movie, its free, it is only an hour long. What have you got to loose? The author is not Catholic.

I will think about it.