I don’t mind starting this kind of discussion, but are you okay with opening it? It will get off of the original topic of the thread. If you don’t mind that, then let’s give it a whirl.I am adding it. Let’s assume that God does not exist. Or should I say: I will assume for the moment that God does not exist. Of course neither of us can prove that God does not exist but that is for another thread.
How can something (universe) come from nothing?
Hey, if you can tell me how something (material universe) can come from absolutely nothing, without over-complicating it, I am all ears friend.
I’ll be back in a bit…Look forward to your response. 
First off, there are models of the universe that don’t just have something coming from nothing. The two that I can think of are the big bounce model in which the universe collapses in on itself creating a singularity which is the big bang for the next universe (This would actually largely be confirmable if the quantum loop theory of gravity turns out to be true) and there is also a theory that universes are created through black hole collapse. If that is true, then this universe was created by another universe which was made by another universe, etc…Hey, if you can tell me how something (material universe) can come from absolutely nothing, without over-complicating it, I am all ears friend.
I am somewhat familiar with both, as a former agnostic. As a former agnostic, it had occurred to me that either the black holes or the preceding universe, (once traced back to the first universe) would have to then come from nothing.
Remember, let’s leave God out of it. I understand that belief in God cannot be proven; it’s faith based.
Or they could have come from another universe, which came from another universe, ad infinitum. I don’t see the problem with that model.I am somewhat familiar with both, as a former agnostic. As a former agnostic, it had occurred to me that either the black holes or the preceding universe, (once traced back to the first universe) would have to then come from nothing.
So, no beginning? Hmmm…
I suppose that would eliminate the need for a cause for the effect (universe or universes). Seems rather implausible and hurts my head when attempting to process the idea. LOL…
Of course I certainly respect your beliefs regarding the universe, even if I don’t understand them. This is true. However, the fact that everything in motion has a mover, and that there is a succession of movers that must ultimately begin with an unmoved mover, leaves aside the terminology of creator/creation. Since an infinity of moved movers is illogical, Aristotle and Aquinas deduced that there must be a prime or unmoved mover. However if we substitute “creator” for “unmoved mover” and “creation” for “succession of moved movers” then the creator/creation terminology is suddenly appropriate again, lucid, and grounded in logic.
I can’t seem to find any logical contradictions that follow from it.So, no beginning? Hmmm…
My simple mind tells me that everything has a beginning, but that’s just me.
If one is describing infinity, then one is describing God, since only God is infinite. If this is the position of Theravada Buddhism, then at least in this respect- which is a fundamentally important one- Theravada Buddhism accords perfectly with the reason of St. Thomas Aquinas as presented in the Summa Theologica.So, no beginning? Hmmm…
This, even in my agnostic days, seemed not only logical and rational but easier wrap my brain around.
Everything has a beginning except that which is eternal, and infinite- which is God. Does this help?My simple mind tells me that everything has a beginning, but that’s just me.
Infinity (God) being the universe or universes, as Bakmoon believes? Bakmoon mentioned that Buddhists do not believe in God.
I forgot to mention: Bakmoon and I were assuming, for the moment, that God does not exist. Obviously, as a catholic, I believe the universe is a product of our eternal Savior!
Actually it is completely logical to argue that if there is a binary, i.e. “God” or “no God,” and “no God” does not explain, then “God” is the only alternative. Particularly since “God” completely explains. This also accords with Occam’s Razor.
They don’t believe in God, but they believe in infinity, which St. Thomas Aquinas says is a defining attribute of God?Infinity (God) being the universe or universes, as Bakmoon believes? Bakmoon mentioned that Buddhists do not believe in God.
Why is an infinity of moved movers illogical?
They don’t believe in God, but they believe in infinity, which St. Thomas Aquinas says is a defining attribute of God?
I think Bak Moon must have gone nighty-night Joe, as I must. But congratulations on starting quite a deep and thought-provoking thread. I gain more respect for our Doctor Thomas all the time. How did he reason so perfectly? Well, I guess Aristotle helped. Then a bit of revelation added to his already superlative intellect. His beatific vision must be very close and perfected indeed!**
Have a good night.