Could the Universe have Created Itself?

[Peter_Plato]

Regarding Occam’s razor, eliminating ad hoc hypotheses to the greatest extent possible is important. Watch, I’ll explain rainbows with some ad hoc assistance: Rainbows are produced by pots of gold that are maintained by leprechauns. Why haven’t we seen leprechauns, you ask? They’re invisible, of course. Why can’t we touch them? They’re ethereal, silly! Ah, you want to find the pot of gold though? Well the pot of gold is at the end of the rainbow. Since rainbows change their orientation everytime you move, as they are merely optical phenomena, my theory is unfalsifiable.

Science would be dominated with this nonsense without Occam’s razor, because even a child could explain anything if ad hoc is allowed.

Ad hoc is not only allowed it is positively enforced.

Both Occam’s Razor and falsifiability are ad hoc restrictions on evidence.

ad hoc

1. for the special purpose or end presently under consideration.
2. concerned or dealing with a specific purpose or end: an ad hoc committee.

The contrived purpose or end is what determines what constitutes evidence so the entire enterprise of evidence gathering becomes…

1. Improvised and often impromptu: “On an ad hoc basis…”

… because it is not “open” to all evidence but rather pre-filters it to see what it wants to see or think that it should.

The entire process is just like your rainbow story just with greater sophistication and the aura of importance.

 

[Tomdstone]

Feel free then to carry on with your axiomatic definition of “universe” which means “necessary” to you.

Has anyone shown that it is possible for the universe not to have existed?

 

[Oreoracle]

Both Occam’s Razor and falsifiability are ad hoc restrictions on evidence.

The contrived purpose or end is what determines what constitutes evidence so the entire enterprise of evidence gathering becomes…

No, Occam’s razor doesn’t restrict evidence, it restricts explanations. Any high school science class will teach you the difference between evidence and explanations/hypotheses.

Also, Occam’s razor doesn’t have an end in mind. It’s just common sense that the more assumptions you make, the less likely you are to be correct. If I propose that you have a sock in your drawer, and someone else proposes you have a black sock in your drawer, clearly the other person is less likely to be correct.

 

[Peter_Plato]

What is the proof for that?

What? You don’t believe it on my word?

I am deeply wounded.

 

[Tomdstone]

And matter cannot give rise to mind, conscience, will, knowledge, order, purpose.

This is an interesting point. I haven’t seen where physicists or other scientists have shown that consciousness and ability to observe reality around you and then communicate your ideas to others can arise from matter alone. Or exactly how does this consciousness arise. If the BB is due to an unstable quantum fluctuation, how did consciousness arise from that. And consciousness is part of the universe and must be accounted for. Animals have consciousness and are able to observe reality and communicate, but they do not pass on their knowledge to subsequent generations in the form of written communication.

 

[Peter_Plato]

No, Occam’s razor doesn’t restrict evidence, it restricts explanations. Any high school science class will teach you the difference between evidence and explanations/hypotheses.

It restricts evidence by restricting explanations and that leads to a skewed process of evidence gathering.

Also, Occam’s razor doesn’t have an end in mind. It’s just common sense that the more assumptions you make, the less likely you are to be correct. If I propose that you have a sock in your drawer, and someone else proposes you have a black sock in your drawer, clearly the other person is less likely to be correct.

And if I know it’s my underwear drawer, I would let you two duke it out with a smile on my face.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Has anyone shown that it is possible for the universe not to have existed?

According to the Big Bang theory, the universe began in time. It is nearly 14 billion years old by one estimate. How it began is shrouded in mystery. Why the universe possesses the laws and elements it possesses is also a mystery. Why the dominant element in the universe is hydrogen is a mystery. If there were no hydrogen, there would be no water and hence no life.

But you have offfered no proof that the universe always existed. There is no such proof. The assumption that the universe is eternal stopped Einstein from discovering the Big Bang. That’s becasue he was a narrow minded philosopher and allowed the narrowness of his philosophy to create narrowness in his physics. It must have deeply embarassed him that it took a young Catholic priest/mathematician to correct his math so that the Big Bang would emerge as the dominant theory of the origin of the universe.

Carl Sagan in Cosmos, 1980 A.D.

“Ten or twenty billion years ago, something happened – the Big Bang, the event that began our universe…. In that titanic cosmic explosion, the universe began an expansion which has never ceased…. As space stretched, the matter and energy in the universe expanded with it and rapidly cooled. The radiation of the cosmic fireball, which, then as now, filled the universe, moved through the spectrum – from gamma rays to X-rays to ultraviolet light; through the rainbow colors of the visible spectrum; into the infrared and radio regions. The remnants of that fireball, the cosmic background radiation, emanating from all parts of the sky can be detected by radio telescopes today. In the early universe, space was brilliantly illuminated.”

Genesis, 1200 B.C. : “In the beginning God said: ‘Let there be light.’”

As astronomer Robert Jastrow pointed out in God and the Astronomers.

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

 

[Tomdstone]

Suppose hypothetically that you are right, and that there is indeed a purpose and order to the universe. Wouldn’t it be more apparent? Wouldn’t the overwhelming majority of people see this purpose and agree with each other on the matter?

Not necessarily. Possibly, but not necessarily. Take for example, string theory or superstring theory. There are a whole lot of people who do not agree that string theory is the answer to the question of unification of forces, even though it is.

 

[Tomdstone]

Just think of Heaven as the place of ultimate intellectual and psychological fulfillment.. That sounds like a good place to me.

Linus2nd

What will we do in heaven? Will we be able to work out and discover something new, or will everything be known to us and then what?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

There are a whole lot of people who do not agree that string theory is the answer to the question of unification of forces, even though it is.

On whose authority do you say this? Yours?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

What will we do in heaven? Will we be able to work out and discover something new, or will everything be known to us and then what?

Not having gotten there, I have no idea what we will do. Mostly, I hope, enjoy the love of God.

 

[Oreoracle]

It restricts evidence by restricting explanations and that leads to a skewed process of evidence gathering.

No, it doesn’t. Evidence is just data, something like “It took this object 3.427 seconds to reach the ground after it was released.” An explanation is more like “This object fell because it was in Earth’s gravitational field.” They are fundamentally different things. Notice how the explanation is speculative, whereas the data is objective.

 

[Tomdstone]

We desire meaning and purpose. Atheism does not provide a sufficient supply based upon my experience. Ergo atheism is not sufficiently meaningful nor purposeful. I continue to seek elsewhere.

At some point prospecting that only turns up rocks and lumps of clay ought to be abandoned. If you want to continue digging through rubble, I won’t try to stop you. You’re a big boy or girl. (I presume.)

You aren’t “selling” atheism but you are here throwing up constant commentary that attempts to dissuade others from mining in this hillside when - if you really had something to offer - you should be off reaping an abundance in your own. Obviously, you are here because the fruits of your labour in the atheism quarry have been negligible and you are doing some scouting.

My labours in Christianity have resulted in enormous payouts in terms of meaning and purpose. What reason would I have to stop, just because you can’t see the value in what I am extracting? I value and treasure it. That fact shouldn’t bother you if your atheism quarry is so rewarding. You are free to dig there and live off its spoils. I am just not sure why you would bother coming here to the intellectual wasteland and squander your time flapping your lips if it’s so “lush” over there.

This is not fair because atheists have been working on developing a rationale for values and meaning in life while at the same time coming to terms with their atheist views.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Has anyone shown that it is possible for the universe not to have existed?

If by “universe” you mean “space-time, matter and energy,” then it seems pretty clear THAT “universe” had a beginning and didn’t “always exist.” Otherwise cosmologists seem to have been barking up a wrong tree of late.

If “universe,” ambiguously, is taken to mean “all and sundry, including nothing and everything including existence itself and everything else we could theoretically throw into the pot,” then, I guess, it has not been shown that THAT could not have always existed, whatever THAT might be.

 

[Tomdstone]

Your preference for a lack of design may also be illusory.

So you see, the philosophy (not the science) of atheism is alive and well with you, even if Hawking thinks it is dead.

You have misstated my position.

 

[Tomdstone]

Yes, the presence of design anywhere in the universe should be unnerving to the atheist. Because if the atheist can design a sentence, there is no reason why the Creator could not design a universe.

The point is that modeling a series of data points by curve fitting may appear to show design where there really is none.

 

[Richca]

What will we do in heaven? Will we be able to work out and discover something new, or will everything be known to us and then what?

We believe that heaven consists essentially in the beatific vision of God, we will know and see God face to face. This vision of God will eternally cause wonder in us since God is infinite and we are finite.

 

[Tomdstone]

What? You don’t believe it on my word?

I am deeply wounded.

Some of your arguments are unconvincing and lack seriousness.

 

[Tomdstone]

But you have offfered no proof that the universe always existed.

I may not have given mathematical proof, but I did give supporting evidence for the cyclical point of view BB then Big Crunch repeated ad infinitum. The support for the cyclical theory of the universe was the link to the papers and a youtube lecture by Penrose.

 

[Peter_Plato]

This is not fair because atheists have been working on developing a rationale for values and meaning in life while at the same time coming to terms with their atheist views.

Fine, assuming “meaning” is an artificial construct and a contrived rationale can truly depict reality. It seems, however, that reality, if it is “reality,” cannot be contrived, artificial or merely rationalized. It is, if anything, apprehended, not constructed.

What is unfair about my statement? It is a point of view. If you disagree, fine. I am not insisting that anyone accept my view. I just don’t think its necessary to describe or justify all viewpoints using atheistic or quantifiable terms.

If someone wants to live by an arbitrary set of rules that limits how they view reality they are free to do so. That doesn’t mean their conclusions should rule the marketplace of ideas, dictate politics or law, nor form the moral landscape.