How to transit from the concept of God to the existence of God

[KingCoil]

Atheists here, I like to ask you what do you have for information of the concept of God in the Christian faith, as also in the Judaic faith and in the Islamic faith?

You see, if you do not have any information about the concept of God in these religions, then it is forgive me for saying so, useless or nonsensical on your part to proclaim endlessly that you just do not believe in the existence of God, gods, goddesses, divinities, deities, whatever else.

I have decided not to any further reply to posters in my earlier thread on experimenting with God, etc., forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11832752&postcount=46: because some posters there are getting to be un-intelligent in their thinking, not grounding themselves in logic and in facts, and I find them to be now in the state and stage of going into doggerel instead of genuine constructive posting.

But I will just put in a last post there again about how the transit is made from the fact of the universe according to scientists having a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago to the existence of God as the cause outside of the universe, namely, God is the cause of the universe.

Here as follows is how the transit is made:

1. The fact, from scientists, the universe has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago.
2. The logic, anything with a beginning has a cause outside itself.
3. The transit, Premise 1 is included within the circumference of the circle that is Premise 2, namely, it is one of the anything that has a beginning.
4. The conclusion, therefore: the universe has need of a cause outside itself to have come into existence.

If folks cannot see the transit there, then I fear they are beyond rational thinking i.e. intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.

Anyway, dear atheists here or anyone not seeing the logic of how we must concur on the concept of God before we can with us knowers of God, know God at all, and from your part who deny God to exist, know what God you are denying to exist: otherwise you are not being logical, for how can you hit the correct target of God in denying God to exist, if you do not have at all any information of the concept of God, in particular the concept of God in the three Abrahamic faiths – Christianity, Islam, Judaism.

I invite you to work with me to arrive the concurrence on the correct information of the concept of God in these three Abrahamic faiths.

You see, dear atheists and atheists’ colleagues, I have this psychological and also epistemological principle that we can and do come to the existence of God by intelligent thinking grounding ourselves on logic and facts, and from the concept of God, we do by that psychological and epistemological principle come to the existence of God, from the concept of God.

That concept, namely, by which we know God in relation to the universe and man, as first and foremost, cause of the universe, which universe scientists tell us has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago.

If you are not an atheist or a colleague of atheists, meaning you are sympathetic to their advocacy of there being no God, gods, goddesses, divinities, deities, whatever else, you are also invited to I mean for us to work together to come to concurrence on the concept of God in the three Abrahamic faiths, of course not exclusively, but just for having a scope limit to our exchange we will concentrate on these three faiths in regard to the concept of God, for there are other faiths which have the concept of God, as first and foremost the cause of the universe.

Let us see if we can have a productive undertaking, employing intelligent thinking grounding ourselves in logic and in facts.

KingCoil

 

[polytropos]

1. The logic, anything with a beginning has a cause outside itself.

When you say that your second premise is “the logic,” what do you mean? That it is derived from a tautology? That it is an analytic truth? That it is self-evident?

 

[CandideWest]

Atheists here, I like to ask you what do you have for information of the concept of God in the Christian faith, as also in the Judaic faith and in the Islamic faith?

I was a practicing Christian for about 20 years and took an active interest in Christian apologetics. So I’m reasonably well versed with Christianity.

You see, if you do not have any information about the concept of God in these religions, then it is forgive me for saying so, useless or nonsensical on your part to proclaim endlessly that you just do not believe in the existence of God, gods, goddesses, divinities, deities, whatever else.

Not at all, I do not believe in any gods for the same reason I don’t believe in ghosts, fairies, the Loch Ness monster and Bigfoot - I have not been presented with a rational justification for that belief.

That is also the same reason I have for not believing in all the thousands of superstitions and religions which I’ve never heard of - I lack a rational justification for believing them.

You do not need to know anything about a claim in order to disbelieve it. You currently do not believe in millions of claims that you have never heard being made.

Here as follows is how the transit is made:

1. The fact, from scientists, the universe has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago.

1. The logic, anything with a beginning has a cause outside itself.

1. The transit, Premise 1 is included within the circumference of the circle that is Premise 2, namely, it is one of the anything that has a beginning.

1. The conclusion, therefore: the universe has need of a cause outside itself to have come into existence.

Ok, so to review.

1. Is the best information we have currently regarding the origin of the universe. So I’m happy to accept that (provisionally) as true.
2. Would need to be demonstrated to be true. Especially given quantum mechanics has already demonstrated that events on a quantum scale are spontaneous (uncaused) and that one of the leading models of the origin of the universe suggests that it came from nothing (check out Lawrence Krause - “A Universe From Nothing”). So as a minimum you’d have to overturn modern physics and cosmology to establish this premise as true… Quite the challenge.
3. I must confess I’m not clear on what you’re trying to say here, but you appear to have written that the universe is only one of the things which had a beginning which had a cause outside itself. Which if the universe is the set of all things that exist, then everything started at Big Bang… But this appears to to be irrelevant anyway.
4. Your conclusion. Well done, this construction is valid (although 3. is actually irrelevant) although not yet sound as you have not demonstrated your premises to be true, and indeed we have good reason to believe them to be false.

Incidentally what you’ve written here is a variation on the “Kalam Cosmological Argument” which is more frequently written like this.

1. Everything which begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.

As with your argument above, the difficulty lies in demonstrating that something cannot be self caused, or uncaused or caused by nothing etc. this hasn’t yet been demonstrated yet, so it too isn’t very convincing.

There are other shortcomings too but they’re very awkward to explain.

Anyway, dear atheists here or anyone not seeing the logic of how we must concur on the concept of God before we can with us knowers of God, know God at all, and from your part who deny God to exist, know what God you are denying to exist: otherwise you are not being logical, for how can you hit the correct target of God in denying God to exist,

To be clear I’m not denying some god, to date I simply reject all god claims I have encountered as they all lack a rational justification for belief. That is all.

 

[Amandil]

1. Is the best information we have currently regarding the origin of the universe. So I’m happy to accept that (provisionally) as true.
2. Would need to be demonstrated to be true. Especially given quantum mechanics has already demonstrated that events on a quantum scale are spontaneous (uncaused) and that one of the leading models of the origin of the universe suggests that it came from nothing (check out Lawrence Krause - “A Universe From Nothing”). So as a minimum you’d have to overturn modern physics and cosmology to establish this premise as true… Quite the challenge.

Yet, if the universe came “from nothing”, I would argue that that in itself requires something outside of the universe to create it, because “from nothing, nothing comes.”

The “spontaneous” nature of certain events in quantum mechanics is merely evidence of the limits of quantum mechanics to classify “spontaneous” events for which it cannot explain the cause for.

Just as you abstract that there is no God because you cannot explain the causes for those events, equally valid is the explanation that those unobservable causes that cause those events are God. In any case its going beyond the scope of quantum mechanics to make philosophical or theological clams based upon mere assumptions that you make from it.

In any case, if “from nothing nothing comes”, then it would seem that #2 would in fact be true. Something(or Someone) must have caused the nothing that was to be the universe, and it could not have been the universe itself.

1. I must confess I’m not clear on what you’re trying to say here, but you appear to have written that the universe is only one of the things which had a beginning which had a cause outside itself. Which if the universe is the set of all things that exist, then everything started at Big Bang… But this appears to to be irrelevant anyway.
2. Your conclusion. Well done, this construction is valid (although 3. is actually irrelevant) although not yet sound as you have not demonstrated your premises to be true, and indeed we have good reason to believe them to be false.

Incidentally what you’ve written here is a variation on the “Kalam Cosmological Argument” which is more frequently written like this.

1. Everything which begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.

As with your argument above, the difficulty lies in demonstrating that something cannot be self caused, or uncaused or caused by nothing etc. this hasn’t yet been demonstrated yet, so it too isn’t very convincing.

That’s not the difficulty at all. It assumes that there is One uncaused cause: God. That can be proven by Aquinas’ Argument from Efficient Causality.

The real problem lies in the atheists claim(at least some claim) that the universe is infinitely old. It seems that Big Bang Cosmology utterly rejects this; the universe had a beginning. And if the universe began to exist, it must have had a cause outside of itself for its coming into being.

To be clear I’m not denying some god, to date I simply reject all god claims I have encountered as they all lack a rational justification for belief. That is all.

How is this sort of (dare I say extreme)rationalism not in many ways the same as the fideism which so many atheists abhor from theists?

They “lack all rational justification for belief”? I won’t derail the thread, but such a vague and sweeping statement seems rather to stretch credulity.

 

[hasantas]

I.

quantum mechanics has already demonstrated that events on a quantum scale are spontaneous (uncaused) and that one of the leading models of the origin of the universe suggests that it came from nothing (check out Lawrence Krause - “A Universe From Nothing”).

Quantum mechanics observe sub-atomic molecules transform each other and energy form but never claim and demonstrate that something emerge and come to into being from Nothing! Spontaneous mean we can not know and discern these transformations. Otherwise the number of molecules is definite and energy is measured and limited.

Matter transform to energy and energy transform to matter. They go nothingness and come presence in a very short time. That shows we need not to go a time about 13.8 billions year ago because God create everything in any times. İf God bacout his power from universe everything will ruin perhaps dissolve

 

[hasantas]

KingCoil

Humanbeing is weak and poor because he has many enemies(diseases, hunger, death etc) and need many things(food, health, love, infinite wishes etc). By those points mankind need a deity supporter. Throughout times humanbeing search for a supernatural god or gods. Some consider sun, other regard stars and some other worship fire etc. At that point we need a help to find The unique Creator and Supporter. Without that help we never can go on a right path.

So Creator of everything sent His prophets to inform mankind. God gave His prophets some miracle to show that they were sent by Creator of universe. And God introduce himself by prophets. Every prophets serve and notify and claim same faith(presence of God, angels, Scriptures, Heavensi hell, Judgement Day). Ruling of religion could be different because of dissimiliar times, conditions, climates etc.

So when we know that everything come to being about 13.8 billion years ago than how we would understand that God created it from nothing if prophets did not tell? That is true the begining of matter need a cause but what kind of a cause?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

So when we know that everything [came into] being about 13.8 billion years ago than how we would understand that God created it from nothing if prophets did not tell? That is true the begining of matter need a cause but what kind of a cause?

It sounds like you are saying that to make the conclusion that God is responsible for the existence of the universe that the existence of prophets needs to be worked into the argument presented by the OP. Am I understanding that correctly? What would the argument be that includes the prophets?

 

[CandideWest]

Yet, if the universe came “from nothing”, I would argue that that in itself requires something outside of the universe to create it, because “from nothing, nothing comes.”

This would appear to be a bald assertion. And again, contradict our best current understanding of physics. Because “nothing” is actually a bubbling brew of virtual particles.

Unless of course you are arguing with regards to some philosophical notion of “nothing” as an absence of being. But in that case you would first need to demonstrate that this “nothing” (a state of non-being) could exist. This seems contradictory as it would mean there was at some point an existent state of non-existence. In other words that “non-being” was in a state of “being”.

Logically problematic.

The “spontaneous” nature of certain events in quantum mechanics is merely evidence of the limits of quantum mechanics to classify “spontaneous” events for which it cannot explain the cause for.

Actually the the possibility of some “hidden variable” behind quantum events was shown to be false in 1969 by a test of John Bell’s inequalities theorem. So, no I’m afraid spontaneous (uncaused) is the correct term.

Just as you abstract that there is no God because you cannot explain the causes for those events, equally valid is the explanation that those unobservable causes that cause those events are God.

Or ghosts, or fairies, or pixies, or magic… Etc. sure, we can posit anything we like as an explanation as long as it exactly imitates all predictions of spontaneous quantum events.

But why on earth would we?

In any case, if “from nothing nothing comes”, then it would seem that #2 would in fact be true. Something(or Someone) must have caused the nothing that was to be the universe, and it could not have been the universe itself.

Why not? Even if, for some reason we accepted the assumption that “from nothing, nothing comes” we still don’t seem to have a reason to reject the possibility if things being self caused or cyclical.

That’s not the difficulty at all. It assumes that there is One uncaused cause: God. That can be proven by Aquinas’ Argument from Efficient Causality.

Even if we ignore all the other (oft-discussed) problems with this one of Aquinas’ arguments then we are only left with some thing, or non-sequential set of things which were themselves uncaused. This leave us trapped in a “special pleading” fallacy and nowhere near any “god”.

The real problem lies in the atheists claim(at least some claim) that the universe is infinitely old. It seems that Big Bang Cosmology utterly rejects this; the universe had a beginning. And if the universe began to exist, it must have had a cause outside of itself for its coming into being.

And so we’re back to the start again, how do we get from the universe having a beginning to it requiring a cause outside itself? Simply asserting that it must be so, may feel intuitive, but the same intuition has told us that electrons are objects and can’t produce wave interference patterns, but they do. The same intuition tells us that the sun goes around the earth, but it doesn’t.

Intuition is not a reliable tool for understanding reality. One of the current leading models of the origin of the universe shows it coming from nothing. Why should we reject the POSSIBILITY of one of the best models our species has ever developed of the beginning of the universe because it doesn’t match our intuition?

How is this sort of (dare I say extreme)rationalism not in many ways the same as the fideism which so many atheists abhor from theists?

If “extreme rationalism” is only believing things when you have a good reason to do so. Then I’m happy to sign up as an “extreme rationalist”. Sounds kinda cool.

They “lack all rational justification for belief”? I won’t derail the thread, but such a vague and sweeping statement seems rather to stretch credulity.

I assume your misquote was a typo. What I said is that

“they all lack a rational justification for belief”.

I stand by that, I’ve never been presented with a rational justification for belief in any gods, despite many years of reading and discussion.

 

[CandideWest]

Quantum mechanics observe sub-atomic molecules transform each other and energy form but never claim and demonstrate that something emerge and come to into being from Nothing!

Incorrect, quantum mechanics has shown that particles are continuously appearing from nothing and collapsing back into nothingness.

Also, the best information we have about the universe indicates that the total energy of the universe is zero.

Spontaneous mean we can not know and discern these transformations.

No, it means they are uncaused.

…That shows we need not to go a time about 13.8 billions year ago because God create everything in any times. İf God bacout his power from universe everything will ruin perhaps dissolve

And why do you believe this to be true?

By those points mankind need a deity supporter.

I disagree I and many other people get along just fine without believing in any gods.

Without that help we never can go on a right path.

Why not?

So Creator of everything sent His prophets to inform mankind. God gave His prophets some miracle to show that they were sent by Creator of universe.

So again, how do we work out which (if any) miracles are real and which (if any) prophets we should believe?

So when we know that everything come to being about 13.8 billion years ago than how we would understand that God created it from nothing if prophets did not tell?

Indeed, or more to the point, what reasons do these “prophets” have for their claims?

 

[polytropos]

This would appear to be a bald assertion. And again, contradict our best current understanding of physics. Because “nothing” is actually a bubbling brew of virtual particles.

Unless of course you are arguing with regards to some philosophical notion of “nothing” as an absence of being. But in that case you would first need to demonstrate that this “nothing” (a state of non-being) could exist. This seems contradictory as it would mean there was at some point an existent state of non-existence. In other words that “non-being” was in a state of “being”.

Logically problematic.

A bubbling brew of virtual particles is not “nothing.” That is Professor Krauss’s central and unabashed equivocation. How does the universe come from nothing? Well, first redefine nothing to be “something,” and then show that the universe can come from something.

It seems like a mistake to say that someone specifying the philosophical notion of nothing has to “demonstate that this ‘nothing’ (a state of non-being) could exist.” The philosopher’s notion of nothing is simply a state all existential propositions about which are false. Nothing doesn’t “exist,” and implies no existential commitments.

So if, about some state (say empty space), there is a proposition “there exists…” which is true, then the state is not “nothing.”

 

[hasantas]

… What would the argument be that includes the prophets?

İf we did not know that all order, scale, art, beauty of universe are act and effect of God than every value and fainess would be wasted because everything end and vanish. İs everything is being by themselves or chances than there is no mean in that. Humanbeing is not only consist of atoms but have a soul, moral and senses. So mankind worry because of deaths and finishing. And God does not create things only for a short time. Nothing finish and die but pass and go other world(different dimensioned universe) So we get consoled in that sense.

To understand all these meanings we need teachers by God and they are prophets. God tought his prophets and they notify us. (My English is poor…)

 

[hasantas]

]Incorrect, quantum mechanics has shown that particles are continuously appearing from nothing and collapsing back into nothingness.

Also, the best information we have about the universe indicates that the total energy of the universe is zero.
No, it means they are uncaused.

Than show an example!

    1)   x + y + energy ---------  z + u    (possible)


    2)              -----------  a  + b  + c   ( ?  )

is there any reaction like 2)?

According to thermodinamic (entropy) the energy is transforming from useable form to unuseable form but does not finish or totaly is zero.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

İf we did not know that all order, scale, art, beauty of universe are act and effect of God than every value and fainess would be wasted because everything end and vanish. İ

Okay, it sounds like you are presenting something different than the OP. The OP is trying to infer/establish the existence of God from the existence of the Universe. What you are presenting is dependent on God (and possibly a specific god-concept) having been established, though not necessarily through the argument that the OP is presenting. Because of the difference in what’s being presented and the lack of dependency with the OP what you have to present may better fit in a new thread.

 

[CandideWest]

A bubbling brew of virtual particles is not “nothing.” That is Professor Krauss’s central and unabashed equivocation. How does the universe come from nothing? Well, first redefine nothing to be “something,” and then show that the universe can come from something.

It seems like a mistake to say that someone specifying the philosophical notion of nothing has to “demonstate that this ‘nothing’ (a state of non-being) could exist.” The philosopher’s notion of nothing is simply a state all existential propositions about which are false. Nothing doesn’t “exist,” and implies no existential commitments.

So if, about some state (say empty space), there is a proposition “there exists…” which is true, then the state is not “nothing.”

Ok, then the state which you are talking about could not possibly have ever existed. So there is no need to work out how to get from that state to one where our universe exists.

Lawrence Krause deals with how to get to a universe from nothing - that is a “real” nothing - a void. You can argue all you want that it doesn’t get you from an impossible state of affairs to a universe, but who cares where you can get to from an impossible state?

You seem to be asking a question akin to “starting from a square circle, how many corners do you need to add to get a triangle”. It’s a meaningless question because there is not and cannot be a square circle. So you cannot do anything to one to get to a triangle.

In the same way if “nothing” cannot exist then it’s impossible to get a universe from that state because you couldn’t ever reach that state in order to transition from there to a universe.

 

[CandideWest]

Than show an example!

    1)   x + y + energy ---------  z + u    (possible)


    2)              -----------  a  + b  + c   ( ?  )

is there any reaction like 2)?

According to thermodinamic (entropy) the energy is transforming from useable form to unuseable form but does not finish or totaly is zero.

That’s the laws of thermodynamics, you need to check out the “Zero Energy universe” Google will help. Also if you can get them I would recommend

“A Universe from Nothing”. Astronomical Society of the Pacific. 10 March 2010. by Alexei V. Filippenko and Jay M. Pasachoff

Edward P. Tryon, “Is the Universe a Vacuum Fluctuation?”, Nature, vol. 246, p.396–397, 1973.

The zero energy model made a number of predictions and subsequent measurements have shown these to be accurate to an extremely high degree of precision.

 

[ericc]

Incorrect, quantum mechanics has shown that particles are continuously appearing from nothing and collapsing back into nothingness.

in the words of astrophysicist Marcus Chown:

If the universe owes its origins to quantum theory, then quantum theory must have existed before the universe. So the next question is surely: where did the laws of quantum theory come from?

Also, the best information we have about the universe indicates that the total energy of the universe is zero.

It does not mean there is nothing. Equal amounts of positive energy and negative energy are not “nothing”.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

This would appear to be a bald assertion. And again, contradict our best current understanding of physics. Because “nothing” is actually a bubbling brew of virtual particles.

Unless of course you are arguing with regards to some philosophical notion of “nothing” as an absence of being. But in that case you would first need to demonstrate that this “nothing” (a state of non-being) could exist. This seems contradictory as it would mean there was at some point an existent state of non-existence. In other words that “non-being” was in a state of “being”.

Logically problematic.

Actually the the possibility of some “hidden variable” behind quantum events was shown to be false in 1969 by a test of John Bell’s inequalities theorem. So, no I’m afraid spontaneous (uncaused) is the correct term.

Or ghosts, or fairies, or pixies, or magic… Etc. sure, we can posit anything we like as an explanation as long as it exactly imitates all predictions of spontaneous quantum events.

But why on earth would we?

Why not? Even if, for some reason we accepted the assumption that “from nothing, nothing comes” we still don’t seem to have a reason to reject the possibility if things being self caused or cyclical.

Even if we ignore all the other (oft-discussed) problems with this one of Aquinas’ arguments then we are only left with some thing, or non-sequential set of things which were themselves uncaused. This leave us trapped in a “special pleading” fallacy and nowhere near any “god”.

And so we’re back to the start again, how do we get from the universe having a beginning to it requiring a cause outside itself? Simply asserting that it must be so, may feel intuitive, but the same intuition has told us that electrons are objects and can’t produce wave interference patterns, but they do. The same intuition tells us that the sun goes around the earth, but it doesn’t.

Intuition is not a reliable tool for understanding reality. One of the current leading models of the origin of the universe shows it coming from nothing. Why should we reject the POSSIBILITY of one of the best models our species has ever developed of the beginning of the universe because it doesn’t match our intuition?

If “extreme rationalism” is only believing things when you have a good reason to do so. Then I’m happy to sign up as an “extreme rationalist”. Sounds kinda cool.

I assume your misquote was a typo. What I said is that

“they all lack a rational justification for belief”.

I stand by that, I’ve never been presented with a rational justification for belief in any gods, despite many years of reading and discussion.

You are clearly very bright Candide but not very honest. Whether you believe in God’s existence or not is your business but to suggest that the world can possibly be responsible for its own existence and all that follows from that doesn’t make any sense at all. No intelligent person can really believe that - I don’t care if they shout it to the house tops. They can’t possibly believe that.

In the same vain, " nothing " means no being, no existing anything, no existing - not even empty place or space. That is not a " metaphysical " definition. It is the common understanding of men since the beginning of recorded writing. Science does not have the standing to tell the world what " nothing " means. But of course it is only those self-appointed ideologues who are making such a claim.

Forget about God, hate him if you want but don’t preach to us that he doesn’t exist. Why does it bother you so much anyway? .

Linus2nd

 

[CandideWest]

in the words of astrophysicist Marcus Chown:

If the universe owes its origins to quantum theory, then quantum theory must have existed before the universe. So the next question is surely: where did the laws of quantum theory come from?

Sure, and that’s something which is being studied and worked on as well.

It does not mean there is nothing. Equal amounts of positive energy and negative energy are not “nothing”.

Exactly true, it doesn’t make the universe “nothing”, but it does mean that you CAN get a universe from “nothing”. Which was the point.

 

[CandideWest]

You are clearly very bright Candide but not very honest. Whether you believe in God’s existence or not is your business but to suggest that the world can possibly be responsible for its own existence and all that follows from that doesn’t make any sense at all. No intelligent person can really believe that - I don’t care if they shout it to the house tops. They can’t possibly believe that.

I agree it doesn’t make sense to our intuition. But since we have already established that our intuition leads us to completely incorrect beliefs about the universe. I don’t see this as a problem.

In the same vain, " nothing " means no being, no existing anything, no existing - not even empty place or space. That is not a " metaphysical " definition. It is the common understanding of men since the beginning of recorded writing. Science does not have the standing to tell the world what " nothing " means. But of course it is only those self-appointed ideologues who are making such a claim.

Ok, but the “nothing” that you are talking about there could not by definition have ever existed. So why would we care about it???

It may well be impossible to get from a philosophical "nothing"to a universe, because we can’t get anywhere from a condition which cannot exist. Just as per my previous post, there is no change you can make to a square-circle to turn it into a triangle. That doesn’t mean we we posit some “magical triangularifier” which explains how to get a triangle from a square-circle. It just means that the question is nonsensical and thus can be ignored.

Physicists are using “nothing” as in “no mass, no energy, no fields, etc” which is as close to the philosophical nothing as could actually exist. And showing that you can get from THERE to our universe.

Forget about God, hate him if you want but don’t preach to us that he doesn’t exist. Why does it bother you so much anyway? .

Linus2nd

Preaching? I don’t believe I’ve done any of that, just in case I have…

ANYONE READING THIS, PLEASE DON’T TAKE MY WORD FOR ANYTHING, FACT CHECK ME AND CHALLENGE ME ON ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING.

The idea of an atheist hating gods is more than a little absurd. I might as well accuse you of hating the Loch Ness monster.

I can’t alas forget about these god concepts alas, I live in a society in which people are constantly trying to justify things on the basis of the concepts. This bothers me because it causes real harm and real suffering to people in the real world.

 

[Oreoracle]

If the universe owes its origins to quantum theory, then quantum theory must have existed before the universe. So the next question is surely: where did the laws of quantum theory come from?

Laws do not precede the objects they describe (at least, there is no reason to suspect that they do). For example, it is meaningless to assert that addition is commutative before one has the notion of addition already in place.

The only laws that an “empty” universe could have would be vacuous truths, like “Every atom in this universe is a carbon atom”, or “Every molecule is named Eddie Murphy”, since such claims are always true of an empty set.