How could the universe and life come into existence without God? How could life evolve without God?

[Michaelangelo]

Science cannot prove that the universe created itself. There are many things science doesn’t have an explanation for, like dark matter and dark energy. And that’s ok.

1. Science isn’t a thing. It is a set of methods developed to explain observations.
2. The scientific method does not prove things.
3. Neither you or I know what we will be able to figure out in the future. Nor do we know if what we currently understand as the universe is all there is. So to proclaim what we will be or not be able to figure out is rather pointless.

 

[Michaelangelo]

Empirical (experiential) science at a minimum requires at least one observation, at least one repeatable sensible experience. Upon that observed effect, a testable hypothesis is formed to explain that effect’s cause. Without that observation to build upon there is only speculation as to causation.

Yes

Has anyone observed a being that exists w/o cause, a being that just pops into existence, an effect with no cause? If so then that effect escapes the fundamental assumption of science: all nature is regulated by laws of causation.

Please stop confusing the idea of nothing in philosophy with actual science. And what is a being exactly?

The beginnings of the universe and life are beyond the realm of science. Those who have only faith in the scientific method (scientism) will not yield but offer the ambiguities of “brute fact” or “emergent property” or “not yet, give us more time”.

You do not know if we will be able to figure out how life came to be or if we will be able to create life ourselves. So your claim that the beginnings of life is beyond the scientific method is pointless.

 

[Pattylt]

Your only option to explain ‘nothingness’

That’s just it. We don’t know it was dark or silent or anything at all. You are assuming things from inside this universe and making a comparison that you know nothing about. Again, NOTHING.

So, you decided that’s what the conditions were. I don’t. I admit complete ignorance.

 

[Noose001]

That’s just it. We don’t know it was dark or silent or anything at all. You are assuming things from inside this universe and making a comparison that you know nothing about. Again, NOTHING.

So, you decided that’s what the conditions were. I don’t. I admit complete ignorance.

How can you not know it was dark if not for ignorance? Darkness is never caused
If everything is to be removed in this universe, darkness will prevail.

 

[Pattylt]

Pattylt:

My problem is that while everything IN the universe has a cause we really have no idea what the conditions were before time/space began.

It sounds like you saying that everything that’s ever comprised the universe should have a cause, and that this was caused by something “prior” in a sense to the universe, but we can’t make any judgments about whether that (or those) thing(s) obey any type of causality. Is that right?

Not quite. I’m saying we do know that everything within our universe seems to be causal, we can’t extrapolate that to what was “previous”. We are constrained by time/space but the conditions or reality or whatever was “before” is blind to us. We don’t even have words to describe before the universe existed. Assumptions are made. Causes declared. All of it guess work. We really truly don’t know.

 

[Michaelangelo]

My problem is that while everything IN the universe has a cause we really have no idea what the conditions were before time/space began. It’s a wall of ignorance. We really can’t assume that any conditions we have within our universe applies to anything before/outside/beyond that wall. We don’t know and may never know.

So, I don’t worry about it. It could be anything that even our fantasies can’t imagine.

I understand your reasoning but I think you aren’t fully aware of where modern physics are right now. And without that insight one usually relies on intuitive understanding of nature. Sadly our intuitive understanding of nature rarely guides us in the right direction. This is because our naked senses are terribly inefficient at providing a proper picture of our surroundings.

But you are correct that physics does not at all explain before the big bang or even right after the big bang either. Although we have backtracked the universal evolution to very close to the big bang.

 

[Pattylt]

I understand your reasoning but I think you aren’t fully aware of where modern physics are right now.

You’re very right but from everything I’ve read, there is still a wall of ignorance of “before” that just isn’t known. Doesn’t physics break down at the BB? Can you direct me to any information of knowledge as to what “before” could possibly be? I’d appreciate it.

 

[o_mlly]

Please stop confusing the idea of nothing in philosophy with actual science. And what is a being exactly?

Since I’m not confused, let me know how I can help you out.

A being is either a creature or with a capital B, the Creator.

You do not know if we will be able to figure out how life came to be or if we will be able to create life ourselves. So your claim that the beginnings of life is beyond the scientific method is pointless.

I know. You just need more time, right?

 

[EndTimes]

Was God’s creative act an example of the actualization of potency?

What is an ‘actualization of potency’?

 

[Michaelangelo]

You’re very right but from everything I’ve read, there is still a wall of ignorance of “before” that just isn’t known. Doesn’t physics break down at the BB? Can you direct me to any information of knowledge as to what “before” could possibly be? I’d appreciate it.

Oh the theories at hand break down even before the big bang
We are also so far from being able to generate particle collisions at high enough energies that will recreate conditions for when, very likey, all four forces were combined, that it is truly pitiful. We have successfully merged electricity with magnetism, to get the electromagnetic force, and the electromagnetic force with the weak nuclear force to give the electroweak force. But we are far from being able to merge the electroweak force with the strong force. And then merge that force with gravity is waaaaaay beyond what we can do in the forseeable future.

The problem with communicating this kind of physics to laypeople is that there is a lot of very heavy math involved to actually understand the concepts. To explain this physics with words and examples from everyday life alone simply doesn’t work. This becomes a even more of a problem when people have read up on ancient philosophical ideas and try to impose those philosophical concepts on the scientific language. Let’s just say that it becomes a mess and very fertile ground for unnecessary online fights

 

[Michaelangelo]

Michaelangelo:

Please stop confusing the idea of nothing in philosophy with actual science. And what is a being exactly?

Since I’m not confused, let me know how I can help you out.
A being is either a creature or with a capital B, the Creator.

And if you translate that into scientific language?

I know. You just need more time, right?

Considering the development of our understanding of nature during the 20’th century alone I think we will figure life out as well.

 

[o_mlly]

And if you translate that into scientific language?

Translate exactly what?

Considering the development of our understanding of nature during the 20’th century alone I think we will figure life out as well.

Considering the number of scientific hypotheses held in 1900 that became obsolete by 2020, I think we will never figure life out scientifically.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

Oh the theories at hand break down even before the big bang

Are you saying, that if we were to go back a mere twenty billion years, we are entering the realms of pure speculation.

 

[Michaelangelo]

Translate exactly what?

This:
A being is either a creature or with a capital B, the Creator

Considering the number of scientific hypotheses held in 1900 that became obsolete by 2020, I think we will never figure life out scientifically.

Considering that the universe has grown from our galaxy to a little bit more during that time, along with the mapping of the human genome and a bunch of other remarkable feats, I see no reason to think the process we call life won’t be figured out too.

But hey, I respect your opinion.

 

[Michaelangelo]

Are you saying, that if we were to go back a mere twenty billion years, we are entering the realms of pure speculation.

Say what? Am I misunderstanding you or are you a bit confused about the timeline of the “universe”?

 

[SeekerOfTruth7]

Again @wesrock, teaching me more and more. Thank you for the great replies and details you give!

God bless!

 

[SeekerOfTruth7]

Yeah, just like a father can’t be younger than his daughter. Well, Einstein might disagree.

Entire plot of Interstellar enter lol

 

[Veritas6]

What is an ‘actualization of potency’?

Aristotle conceives potency as what is able to be, but is not; act is that which is fully real or completed. Something that is not cannot become real on its own, thus a potency becomes actualized or realized from an acting agent. For example, hot coffee has the potency to turn cold, so air (say from a cold day) can cool the coffee. Thus the cold coffee becomes actualized as a result of the cold wind.

 

[SeekerOfTruth7]

There will be a point (if we reach it) where everything will be understood. I have no doubt about that whatsoever.

I have a doubt about at least one thing. The center of black hole. The data that comes from a singularity. Will humans ever be able to enter into a black hole and retrieve data from the singularity?

 

[Michaelangelo]

I have a doubt about at least one thing. The center of black hole. The data that comes from a singularity. Will humans ever be able to enter into a black hole and retrieve data from the singularity?

Singularities have never been observed in nature and is, so far, more of a sign that our models does not work than a true representation of nature. A black hole is simply an object with a radius smaller than its Schwarzschild radius. And black holes does indeed have densities. There is some discussion if information truly is destroyed in a black hole or not.

Black hole information paradox - Wikipedia