If there's no God, how did the Universe form?

[Filippo_Bruno]

And the same could be said of the atheist, why not accept God’s eternal existence.

Because the universe’s existence is easily demonstrable, while God’s existence is not.

That seems to be a stretch in order to hold onto atheism given the fact that the best science shows the universe has a starting point and can not exists eternally.

Question for you: what is north of the north pole? Then, what is before the beginning of time? Why is “nothing” an acceptable answer for the first question, but not acceptable for the second?

 

[exnihilo]

Because the universe’s existence is easily demonstrable, while God’s existence is not.

I would not quite say the universe, as we understand it, is easily demonstrable. A very small non atomic physical world is easily demonstrable. In order to understand what scientists think is the universe we need advanced equipment and complex math. That advanced equipment and complex math says that the universe is not and can not be eternal. In order to get around that some preexisting eternal physical world, unbound by the known laws of the universe is posited.

God’s existence is in fact more easily demonstrable. We can use our reason and common experience alone to learn of Him. And it is in fact easier for the simple reason that more primitive man could think on Him, though often incorrectly, without the need of advanced equipment or complex math.

Question for you: what is north of the north pole? Then, what is before the beginning of time? Why is “nothing” an acceptable answer for the first question, but not acceptable for the second?

By definition nothing is North of the North Pole. Time is an idea that while it seems simple is not necessarily so if you look into it. There are in fact things that are above the North Pole. So the idea isn’t that there is nothing beyond the North Pole. There is something beyond the North Pole. But by definition there is nothing North of it, on this Earth. But we could say the Moon is North of the North Pole if it in fact was…

The second question is about absolute nothingness. There would be nothing before time. But for that to be the case you would have to believe, necessarily, that something can come from nothing. If you did hold to this position then why cant something pop into existence at this very moment? If you hold to this position how can you not believe in miracles since you claim something can come from nothing?

 

[Spock]

And the same could be said of the atheist, why not accept God’s eternal existence.

Seems that you argue against something I did not say. I am not saying that “atheism” is the correct worldview, while “theism” is incorrect. Both start with some basic assumption, and obviously, basic assumptions cannot be substantiated (that is why they are basic). I don’t say that the God hypothesis is wrong, I simply see no need for it. Do you see the difference?

The point is any thinking person does have to recognize that there must be something that has always existed.

This proposition is incorrect. The universe simply exists. No “popping” into existence, and no “eternity”. Both of these assumptions assume an “absolute time”. You use the term “always” as if there would be an absolute time (as Newton postulated). There is no “absolute time”.

The alternative is things pop into existence which no serious person advocates and which has no evidence in that in our experience things dont pop into existence.

Actually they do, in the micro-world.

Given that there must be something eternal the physical world is not a good candidate. The fact that our understanding shows that the universe exploded outward and will continue to until it in some sense breaks apart makes it very unlikely that it was the physical universe that always existed.

Another incorrect metaphor. The Big Bang is not a huge explosion. And it is not the “beginning” of the Universe. It is the beginning of the current form of the Universe.

That statement does not make sense. You are axiomatically rejecting the very idea of metaphysics. The whole idea of metaphysics is that it is beyond physics.

And if that “beyond” is contradicted by what “is”, then it is empty and incorrect speculation. I do not dismiss the speculation (and metaphysics is nothing but speculation) out of hand. However I do dismiss speculation which is contradicted by what we already know. If someone would postulate a metaphysics, where the absolute zero does not hold, or where the speed of light could be exceeded, no one would and should take it seriously.

I’m sure you dont want to limit the world to merely the physical since that would require you to deny things like morality, beauty, justice etc.

Please, give me a break! All of these are emergent properties of the physical world. I have seen this so-called “argument” so many times, that I am about to puke on my keyboard. There are a few posters, who keep bringing up this idiocy. Don’t be one of them.

This does not make sense in light of your post quoted above. There you seem to be agreeing with the idea of something necessarily existing, that for you is the universe. If the universe does not necessarily exist then your choices are something created it (God) or things pop into existence uncaused. I dont think you want to advocate the second option.

The concept of “necessary” existence is nonsensical and bogus.

I would be interested in your easy proof that there is no necessary being. That seems to be a stretch in order to hold onto atheism given the fact that the best science shows the universe has a starting point and can not exists eternally.

It does not belong to this thread, and I already posted it several times.

 

[exnihilo]

Seems that you argue against something I did not say. I am not saying that “atheism” is the correct worldview, while “theism” is incorrect. Both start with some basic assumption, and obviously, basic assumptions cannot be substantiated (that is why they are basic). I don’t say that the God hypothesis is wrong, I simply see no need for it. Do you see the difference?

I dont understand your point. What is the *need *of any hypothesis? Out of curiosity we want to understand the world.

This proposition is incorrect. The universe simply exists. No “popping” into existence, and no “eternity”. Both of these assumptions assume an “absolute time”. You use the term “always” as if there would be an absolute time (as Newton postulated). There is no “absolute time”.

All I can say is that seems like a strange belief that things can just exist but not be eternal. It seems you are denying the very nature of just existing or equivocating.

Actually they do, in the micro-world.

And how is this? Please explain. Interesting to note that you believe things can pop into existence but yet the universe can just be. Seems like if you believe things can pop into the universe you’d use that principle to explain the universe itself rather than resort to just being without cause or eternality.

Another incorrect metaphor. The Big Bang is not a huge explosion. And it is not the “beginning” of the Universe. It is the beginning of the current form of the Universe.

Current form? What evidence do you have that there was a previous form? That seems to me an ad hoc way to avoid the Law of Nature. And how can the Laws of Nature we know about allow any other form?

Please, give me a break! All of these are emergent properties of the physical world. I have seen this so-called “argument” so many times, that I am about to puke on my keyboard. There are a few posters, who keep bringing up this idiocy. Don’t be one of them.

How are these emergent properties? You may not like the argument but it is a great one. If you are married tell your wife that her beauty is an emergent property of the physical world.

The concept of “necessary” existence is nonsensical and bogus.

It makes sense to me and lots of other people. I’d be interested in your reasoning for it being bogus. It is clearly not nonsensical because it makes sense to people.

It does not belong to this thread, and I already posted it several times.

Then please post a link to where you have presented it before.

 

[Bluegoat]

Why would they be problematic? They are inherent in STEM.

They are philosophical problems, especially in relation to epistemology.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

There was nothing. Then it exploded and there was life.

What could be simpler than that.

 

[FurtherSuntime]

Are we not what is called beings. A being is not able to create a Universe. A God relative to a being would be more of a “THING”.

Man can dress up and look for the Thing all he likes, but if he thinks he will find a being is ridiculous.

Man can use the word love to paste to the Thing, thats fine but all it suggests is progress toward reason for himself, and his humanity.

If creation is made possible in the scatter of energy which cannot be created or destroyed in time and space, how is it not possible that energy came directly from some part… of a “Thing”

If a quantity of perfectly regulated self sustaining energy could be bottled, it may appear to be
a Thing which is only impervious to time, in consequence of its own “unique” relative & constant, timely existence.
.

.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

What do atheists usually say?

Atheists (meaning people who do not believe in a god) generally say, “I don’t know,” and point out that no one really knows.

If someone wants to propose how the universe formed, including by proposing that a god did it, let them come forth with the evidence. If it is convincing, they should win a Nobel Prize.

 

[Spock]

They are philosophical problems, especially in relation to epistemology.

Explain, please. For the atheist the physical universe is the existential primary. To gain knowledge about the physical universe (which is what epistemology is all about) we use the scientific method: observe a phenomenon, set up a hypothesis, make prediction based on the hypothesis, and conduct experiments. If the prediction and the result of the experiment are the same, we gain confidence that the hypothesis was correct. If the outcome of the experiment differs from the prediction, we discard or modify the hypothesis. Nothing could be simpler.

By the way, the confidence does not have to reach 100%. If we hypothesize that a stone will fall “down” when released, and we conduct a a few trillion experiments (all of which confirm the hypothesis), then we are confident that the hypothesis was “good enough”.

Before some idiot would start to complain that the scientific method is “contradictory” because it cannot substantiate itself, it is not supposed to. It gets its substantiation from the fact that it works. There is no a-priori substantiation for it, but there are zillions of a-posteriori ones. Moreover, there is no substitute for it. No one has ever offered an objective, repeatable method to gain knowledge about the Universe.

 

[Spock]

I dont understand your point. What is the *need *of any hypothesis? Out of curiosity we want to understand the world.

Certainly. But that does not make any hypothesis equally respectable. We could “hypothesize” that the planets are pushed around by some good planet-pushers, and rotated by some evil planet-rotaters, but what would be the point?

All I can say is that seems like a strange belief that things can just exist but not be eternal. It seems you are denying the very nature of just existing or equivocating.

The word “eternal” again presupposes an absolute time.

And how is this? Please explain. Interesting to note that you believe things can pop into existence but yet the universe can just be. Seems like if you believe things can pop into the universe you’d use that principle to explain the universe itself rather than resort to just being without cause or eternality.

Who knows? Maybe the Universe just popped into existence according to the theory of Stephen Hawking? Maybe not.

Current form? What evidence do you have that there was a previous form? That seems to me an ad hoc way to avoid the Law of Nature. And how can the Laws of Nature we know about allow any other form?

The word “current form” simply implies the differentce from the singularity.

How are these emergent properties? You may not like the argument but it is a great one. If you are married tell your wife that her beauty is an emergent property of the physical world.

Again, that would lead too far from the topic, but a very short reply may suffice. Do you understand that the wetness of water is an emergent property - since neither hydrogen nor oxygen are “wet”? If yes, you can explore the rest. If no, then you have a problem.

It makes sense to me and lots of other people. I’d be interested in your reasoning for it being bogus. It is clearly not nonsensical because it makes sense to people.

I can’t help what other people believe. I already explained in a previous post that necessary and contingent are only meaningful in a causative chain.

Then please post a link to where you have presented it before.

I don’t have a link at hand, but I will give a very short synopsys (but will not go into a follow-up in this thread).

1. Our existing universe is a possible world.
2. If we would delete a whole causal chain from the world, the resulting world would also be a possible world. (There would be logically “hanging” elements).
3. As such if we would delete the whole Milky Way, the result would still be a possible world. Let’s call this world W1.
4. Also, if we would delete everything but Milky Way, the result would again be a possible world. Let’s call this world W2.

Since W1 and W2 do not have anything in common - their intersection is a null-world - we have two possible worlds, without a common element in them. Therefore there is nothing that would be part of all possible worlds. Therefore there is no “necessary” existence. Q.E.D.

 

[Spock]

(There would be logically “hanging” elements).

Ooops. I made a typo. The quoted sentence should read: “There would be ***NO ***logically “hanging” elements”. Sorry about that.

 

[Filippo_Bruno]

I would not quite say the universe, as we understand it, is easily demonstrable.

You don’t need to understand the universe any more deeply than a two-year-old does to be convinced of its existence. It’s much more reasonable to accept the eternal existence of something that clearly exists (the universe) than it is to accept the eternal existence of something that is not evident (a God outside of the universe).

God’s existence is in fact more easily demonstrable. We can use our reason and common experience alone to learn of Him.

It’s easier to demonstrate the existence of something imperceptible, than it is to demonstrate things that make themselves known to the senses whether one likes it or not?

By definition nothing is North of the North Pole. Time is an idea that while it seems simple is not necessarily so if you look into it. There are in fact things that are above the North Pole.

So the idea isn’t that there is nothing beyond the North Pole. There is something beyond the North Pole. But by definition there is nothing North of it, on this Earth. But we could say the Moon is North of the North Pole if it in fact was…

Above is not north. By definition there is no “before the beginning of time.” It is the exact same thing.

The second question is about absolute nothingness. There would be nothing before time. But for that to be the case you would have to believe, necessarily, that something can come from nothing.

How could it have “come from” nothing? There was no before-state for it to “come from.” The idea of becoming presupposes time, just like the idea of going north presupposes anywhere north to go to. You can’t go north of the north pole, and you can’t “come from” something at the beginning of time.

 

[exnihilo]

The word “eternal” again presupposes an absolute time.

Eternal can really mean several things in its common use. It can mean always existing or will always exist. The first idea is harder to understand simply because our experience tells us things have not always existed and even won’t always exist. The second idea is a bit easier to understand but still unusual as most things cease to exist.

This gets into the idea of infinity. There is a lot of discussion about infinity but it seems to me that there is no such thing as an actual infinity only a potential or possible infinity.

If there are only potential infinities then the universe can not go backwards an infinite amount of time. Thus it began at some point in the past. But then the question is what was there before that point. The answer would be nothing like the universe itself. What there was would not be physical or in time. That is why God makes the most sense as for what formed the universe.

You don’t need to understand the universe any more deeply than a two-year-old does to be convinced of its existence. It’s much more reasonable to accept the eternal existence of something that clearly exists (the universe) than it is to accept the eternal existence of something that is not evident (a God outside of the universe).

No two year old understands the universe like a professional scientist. A two year old can understand the existence of some things like land, water, buildings, plants, parents. But only a very precocious two year old is even going to truly comprehend the extent and roundness of the Earth and very unlikely to understand much about celestial bodies beyond the Earth.

And no two year old would understand anything about the complex nature of the physical world without the benefit of technology and knowledge. If you did not instruct a two year old in the complexity of the world they would have no such understanding. In fact if you did not instruct them about this at all they could live a hundred years and still have no understanding of the world as modern scientists do.

It’s easier to demonstrate the existence of something imperceptible, than it is to demonstrate things that make themselves known to the senses whether one likes it or not?

Yes. We have a mind and reason. After years of living in the physical world and with the knoweldge of science our attention to the non-physical world can be dulled. In acknowledging the spiritual you are not denying the physical. How do you believe justice or beauty exist? It certainly cant be from your physical senses.

The deniers own arguments about why we have religion works to prove my point. According to the denier people in the past, who directly experienced the physical world, more easily believed in the supernatural. Thus religions were formed and man truly did believe. According to the denier it was only the knowledge of science that set men free from his ignorance. But for this to be true it also would have to be true that man in his natural state without being taught accumulated knowledge finds it easy to believe in the supernatural. Thus it is easier to believe in the spiritual.

Of course you could take that to mean that with more knoweldge God is harder to believe in. That is not so because anyone who truly studies philosophy will understand that science does not actually answer all the questions it claims to, nor can it.

Above is not north. By definition there is no “before the beginning of time.” It is the exact same thing.

I agree above is not North. There is no time before the beginning of time. That does not mean there was nothing before time. Time itself could be created and therefore something is causally prior to time itself.

 

[Filippo_Bruno]

No two year old understands the universe like a professional scientist. A two year old can understand the existence of some things like land, water, buildings, plants, parents. But only a very precocious two year old is even going to truly comprehend the extent and roundness of the Earth and very unlikely to understand much about celestial bodies beyond the Earth.

None of those things are relevant to understanding the bare fact that the universe exists, which is evident. One’s understanding of the universe may grow – or more likely shrink as one realizes the extent of the things that one does not know – but the simple truth of the collection of everything perceptible is obvious. The existence of a God outside the universe is not evident to that degree.

I agree above is not North. There is no time before the beginning of time. That does not mean there was nothing before time. Time itself could be created and therefore something is causally prior to time itself.

Who’s saying “there’s nothing before time?” The concept of “before time” is as nonsensical as the concept of “north of the north pole.”

There is an inaccuracy of common language here. “There is nothing before time” can be interpreted as a precise positive claim that in some state “before” time, there is nothing. It can also be interpreted as a poorly expressed version of my claim, which is that the concept of “before” and “after” time is meaningless.

You are the one who is saying there is something “prior” to time, which is of course a synonym for “before.” I am merely pointing out that saying nothing exists before time (in the precise sense), or saying something exists before time, are both meaningless, because the state of affairs they assume is self-contradictory.

 

[Spock]

This gets into the idea of infinity. There is a lot of discussion about infinity but it seems to me that there is no such thing as an actual infinity only a potential or possible infinity.

Unfortunately the argument of “it seems to me” is not worth much. There is a cosmogony, which stipulates a periodic big-bang, big-crunch type of oscillating universe. It is not much in favor these days, but it cannot be ruled out.

If there are only potential infinities then the universe can not go backwards an infinite amount of time. Thus it began at some point in the past. But then the question is what was there before that point.

No, that question does not arise, just like the question “what is to the north from the North Pole?” does not arise. Of course, the words can be put together (after all the paper or the electrons are rather “forgiving” and do not start a “revolution” when something nonsensical is placed unto them - more is the pity!) but the questions will be without merit. I could ask you all day long: “when did you stop beating your wife?” and you would be correct to ignore this question, on the ground that it is a nonsensical string of words, without meaning. The question of “what happened before the hypothetical beginning of the universe?” is equally inane, and merits no reply.

 

[Al_Moritz]

There is an inaccuracy of common language here. “There is nothing before time” can be interpreted as a precise positive claim that in some state “before” time, there is nothing. It can also be interpreted as a poorly expressed version of my claim, which is that the concept of “before” and “after” time is meaningless.

You are the one who is saying there is something “prior” to time, which is of course a synonym for “before.” I am merely pointing out that saying nothing exists before time (in the precise sense), or saying something exists before time, are both meaningless, because the state of affairs they assume is self-contradictory.

There is an inaccuracy of common language here.

Quite so. Any classical philosopher worth his/her salt will tell you that we have to make a distinction between “temporally prior to time” and “ontologically prior to time (prior to the existence of time, space and matter)”. The first is indeed non-sensical, the second is a meaningful concept that needs to be answered.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Unfortunately the argument of “it seems to me” is not worth much. There is a cosmogony, which stipulates a periodic big-bang, big-crunch type of oscillating universe. It is not much in favor these days, but it cannot be ruled out.

Ironically, that cosmogeny is precisely that, an unproven “it seems to me”.

 

[Bluegoat]

Explain, please. For the atheist the physical universe is the existential primary. To gain knowledge about the physical universe (which is what epistemology is all about) we use the scientific method: observe a phenomenon, set up a hypothesis, make prediction based on the hypothesis, and conduct experiments. If the prediction and the result of the experiment are the same, we gain confidence that the hypothesis was correct. If the outcome of the experiment differs from the prediction, we discard or modify the hypothesis. Nothing could be simpler.

By the way, the confidence does not have to reach 100%. If we hypothesize that a stone will fall “down” when released, and we conduct a a few trillion experiments (all of which confirm the hypothesis), then we are confident that the hypothesis was “good enough”.

Before some idiot would start to complain that the scientific method is “contradictory” because it cannot substantiate itself, it is not supposed to. It gets its substantiation from the fact that it works. There is no a-priori substantiation for it, but there are zillions of a-posteriori ones. Moreover, there is no substitute for it. No one has ever offered an objective, repeatable method to gain knowledge about the Universe.

The questions that led the ancients to posit and underlying, self-existent, immaterial, unified source of Being were not scientific questions - though early on they were investigated as such.

They wanted to know how it was possible to have knowledge at all. What made a think itself, and not something else? How can we have knowledge of anything in a changing world?

These are basic problems of epistemology. Science doesn’t, can’t, and isn’t supposed to answer them. We can all see that in fact, we do seem to be able to discern things, come to conclusions, differentiate a rock from a tree, and a tree from a branch. But the question is, how?

You can deny philosophy reflects any reality, but you deny science then as well. If you want to say that the methods of science have reality, or reflect reality, then you can’t deny the principles it rests on, which are non-scientific principles. You want to have your cake and eat it too. Are you so attached to believing only what you can see and feel directly? If so, many of the methods of science should be lost to you as well - mathematics could be quite dodgy with that view. (In fact Plato thought that mathematics was the epitome of philosophy.) If you want to deny the possibility of any sure knowledge, you would be best off to follow Diogenes, who was at least consistent in his treatment of all knowledge.

 

[Spock]

Ironically, that cosmogeny is precisely that, an unproven “it seems to me”.

Indeed it is. Along with all metaphysics. The only thing which is not empty speculation is this: “the physical universe exists”.

 

[Spock]

The questions that led the ancients to posit and underlying, self-existent, immaterial, unified source of Being were not scientific questions - though early on they were investigated as such.

They wanted to know how it was possible to have knowledge at all. What made a think itself, and not something else? How can we have knowledge of anything in a changing world?

These are basic problems of epistemology. Science doesn’t, can’t, and isn’t supposed to answer them. We can all see that in fact, we do seem to be able to discern things, come to conclusions, differentiate a rock from a tree, and a tree from a branch. But the question is, how?

You can deny philosophy reflects any reality, but you deny science then as well. If you want to say that the methods of science have reality, or reflect reality, then you can’t deny the principles it rests on, which are non-scientific principles. You want to have your cake and eat it too. Are you so attached to believing only what you can see and feel directly? If so, many of the methods of science should be lost to you as well - mathematics could be quite dodgy with that view. (In fact Plato thought that mathematics was the epitome of philosophy.) If you want to deny the possibility of any sure knowledge, you would be best off to follow Diogenes, who was at least consistent in his treatment of all knowledge.

My first remark concerns mathematics. Mathematics is not science in the strict sense. It is an asbtraction, which is based upon some selected axioms. We can agree to call it “abstract science” along with “formal logic”, and as long as we are both aware of the distinction, we are on firm ground. The truths of mathematics are contingent upon the axioms - which can be chosen arbitrarily. It is a major error to think about mathematical truths as “absolute”.

Second remark: The fact that you decided to bring up mathematics already shows to me that we are not on the same page. Mathematics says nothing about reality, though some mathematical constructs can be used as wonderful models of reality. I explictly said that the scientific method is only applicable to discern truths pertaining to physical reality - and that implictly excludes mathematics and the other “abstract sciences”. I did not mention them explicitly, because I trusted you to see the significance of omission, and did not wish to waste our time to belabor the obvious. In the light of your post it was an error on my part. Sorry.

Third remark: you say that science cannot answer the question “how do we gain knowledge?”. In this question the “how” is ambiguous. If it asks: “what neural processes are involved in gaining knowledge about reality?” then this question is very much a sicentific question, belonging to biology and neurophysics - about which the “ancients” had absolutely no idea. If the “how” means, “how is it possible to gain knowledge about physical reality?” - then we use a few, basic, unprovable assumptions (and all basic assumptions are unprovable).

So, contrary to what you say, I do not accept “only” what I can see and touch. I know that science is also founded on a few basic, unprovable principles - among them is that the universe is “knowable”, the universe is “consistent”, that there are “laws of nature”. Now, contrary to what you imply, these basic principles did not come from some empty musings of some philosophers contemplating their belly-buttons in the seclusion of their ivory-towers. The are distilled from innumerable observations of innumerable “experiments” by innumerable humans.

Fourth remark: “it all started with the senses”. Those ancients might have contemplated “how do we tell the difference between rock and a tree?”. The answer is “look at them, touch them, lick them, feel them…”. Use your senses. As before, there is no a-priori argument that our senses correctly reflect reality. There is no need for such an argument. The only reason we trust our senses, is that they work. The verification is a-posteriori. If someone would discard their own sensory (name removed by moderator)ut, they would die very quickly, and with their death their incorrect worldview would be “Darwin’d out” .

Again, contrary what you seem to believe: materialists / empiricists do not believe that “only the empirically verifyable propositions can be considered true”. (Unfortunately there are a few idiots on the board who keep on quacking this incorrect idea - no matter how many times their nose is rubbed into their excrement. Don’t be one of them. ) Propositions are considered true under 4 circumstances:

1. if the are basic principles of physical reality (selected during innumerable observations),
2. if they are some arbitrarily selected axioms for a formal system,
3. if they correctly reflect the physical reality,
4. if they are the logical corollary of a set of axioms.

Fifth remark: None of these cover the so-called supernatural realm. But as a materialist, I see no need for that hypothesis. All I wanted to show here that the materialist / empiricist stance is perfectly adequate in explaining itself and the physical reality.