How can the univese exist without God to create it?

[EarthScienceguy]

Explain the existence of the universe without God to create it.
In other words, how can the universe be shown to come into existence empirically without God to create it?

The basic building block of the universe is energy. We do not even know what energy in its most basic form is.

There is a fact, or if you wish, a law, governing all natural phenomena that are known to date. There is no known exception to this law – it is exact so far as we know. The law is called the conservation of energy. It states that there is a certain quantity, which we call energy, that does not change in manifold changes which nature undergoes. That is a most abstract idea, because it is a mathematical principle; it says that there is a numerical quantity which does not change when something happens. It is not a description of a mechanism, or anything concrete; it is just a strange fact that we can calculate some number and when we finish watching nature go through her tricks and calculate the number again, it is the same.

— The Feynman Lectures on Physics

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to William in post #0]

My quantum field is eternal, thus space and time don't exist other than in temporal states of universes which derive from the eternal quantum field.

This is the problem with making the physical your god. The quantum field is subjected to an unidirectional flow of time, which means if it is eternal, then the field would have to cross infinity, which is not possible. Whatever created the universe had to be independent of time.

Besides all the problems associated with creating a universe like:
Missing Monopoles
too little antimatter
no ‘population III’ stars
no evidence for cosmic inflation
Axis of Evil and the Cold Spot
With no inflation serious horizon problem

There is a lack of evidence to suggest that the universe originated from a quantum event or a Big Bang.

If you insist on arguing for an immaterial "God," you will have to explain how an immaterial non-thing can create material things.

He created it out of nothing. God is a Spirit being. We do not even know the essential essence of energy, from which everything comes. So, how can you say that something immaterial did not create everything when energy, which is not material, and we do not even know the essential essence of it, is the basis of everything?

[William]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #181]

My quantum field is eternal, thus space and time don't exist other than in temporal states of universes which derive from the eternal quantum field.

This is the problem with making the physical your god. The quantum field is subjected to an unidirectional flow of time, which means if it is eternal, then the field would have to cross infinity, which is not possible. Whatever created the universe had to be independent of time.

No. The QF is essentially a timeless infinitant field which has within it, glitches which create bubbling temporary densification on various parts of the IQF.

The glitches are sound waves which react with the IQF and cause things to be, based on the nature of the wave sounding.

THis is caused by thought - mindfulness and intention and ability to form things (glitches) from the IQF.

In visual terms, these glitches are represented by Galaxies. The condensing of a localised QF through mindfulness = let there be...and there was...THe thought become the action due to both the IQF and the Mind able to utilize that for the purpose of creating things.

Besides all the problems associated with creating a universe like:
Missing Monopoles
too little antimatter
no ‘population III’ stars
no evidence for cosmic inflation
Axis of Evil and the Cold Spot
With no inflation serious horizon problem

Sounds like a particular recipe from a particular way of thinking.

There is a lack of evidence to suggest that the universe originated from a quantum event or a Big Bang.

Yet, evidence to suggest that the universe originated from a thought appears plausible...the Big Bang appears to be more of a birthing event...a beginning of the hatching of the thought which in turn, shaped itself from it origins...

If you insist on arguing for an immaterial "God," you will have to explain how an immaterial non-thing can create material things.

He created it out of nothing. God is a Spirit being. We do not even know the essential essence of energy, from which everything comes. So, how can you say that something immaterial did not create everything when energy, which is not material, and we do not even know the essential essence of it, is the basis of everything?

Oh - he took the credit for the creation by denying he used any physical means to do so.

Effectively then, we exist within the mind of that being, like imaginary soldiers in an imaginary sand pit...

The question remains. Why creating anything if you are One in Oneself?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to William in post #182]

No. The QF is essentially a timeless infinitant field which has within it, glitches which create bubbling temporary densification on various parts of the IQF.

It is not timeless. This is one of the major problems with relativity and quantum mechanics. Relativity time can change, and in quantum mechanics, it is a constant. That is a problem for you,r quantum god.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to William in post #182]

Yet, evidence to suggest that the universe originated from a thought appears plausible...the Big Bang appears to be more of a birthing event...a beginning of the hatching of the thought which in turn, shaped itself from it origins...

Evidence suggests that there was no "Big Bang."

Effectively then, we exist within the mind of that being, like imaginary soldiers in an imaginary sand pit...

I am real and I have free will. The only way for there to be individuals with free will is if God created them. Your mind god cannot produce that.

[William]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #184]

I am real and I have free will.

Explain this"I am" you think you are.

It is not timeless. This is one of the major problems with relativity and quantum mechanics. Relativity time can change, and in quantum mechanics, it is a constant. That is a problem for you,r quantum god.

Yes - I see that my explanation went over your head there, but such is life...

Your mind god cannot produce that.

You and every other supernaturalist still have to explain how a non material entity can create material things.

The only feasible answer to that is that it creates things in its mind. That makes your supernatural God a mind god.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to William in post #185]

Explain this"I am" you think you are.

Incorrect, we are individual entities with free will. That is what observations inform us that we are. If we were not, society would break down because no one would be responsible for their actions. Which is what most people want in the end. Since observations suggest that we are free-will individual agents, the burden of proof would be on the one who denys this fact.

Yes - I see that my explanation went over your head there, but such is life...

Incorrect, you are not understanding the fundamental nature of quantum mechanics. Which makes your belief impossible.

You and every other supernaturalist still have to explain how a non material entity can create material things.

The only feasible answer to that is that it creates things in its mind. That makes your supernatural God a mind god.

Ok, I will repeat it. He created the universe out of nothing. God is a Spirit being. We do not even know the essential essence of energy, and energy is nonmaterial, and from energy all matter originates. So, how can you say that something immaterial did not create everything when energy is nonmaterial? In fact, the only way for man to exist as a free will agent is for a nonmaterial God to create man as an individual entity with free will.

[Difflugia]

Incorrect, you are not understanding the fundamental nature of quantum mechanics.

Look, Pot, since Kettle is the only one willing to engage with you at the moment, why not give him a fair shake?

[William]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #186]

Explain this"I am" you think you are.

Incorrect, we are individual entities with free will. That is what observations inform us that we are. If we were not, society would break down because no one would be responsible for their actions. Which is what most people want in the end. Since observations suggest that we are free-will individual agents, the burden of proof would be on the one who denys this fact.

No - what I was asking you to do was explain what you think you are as an "I Am"...

For example, I Am a mind having an experience as a human being, on a planet in a universe. Do you understand your self in the same way, or something different?

I do not think as a mind experiencing being human that I have ultimate free will but restricted free will within the broader reality being experienced. This includes self responsibility as a matter of "it is what it is in the framework it emerges within...merges with..."

Yes - I see that my explanation went over your head there, but such is life...

Incorrect, you are not understanding the fundamental nature of quantum mechanics. Which makes your belief impossible.

I am understanding it from both viewpoints - not just QM within this universe...but as an inert infinite field of which but a fraction of a fraction of a disturbance through thought created this ongoing reality experience that Human Quantum Physicists refer to as "QM".

If you want to argue for QM in that light, best drop the idea we exist within a created thing, if you are unable to explain in detail how that thing was created without any material to create it with...

Ok, I will repeat it. He created the universe out of nothing.

Repeating it doesn't explain the process in detail. Please try again, so that we are clear on the details...

God is a Spirit being.

Is that like a Ghost? Something else? If it is made of "nothing", what is the nothing it is made of?

We do not even know the essential essence of energy, and energy is nonmaterial, and from energy all matter originates.

Is "non-material" the "essential essence of energy"? If so, then are you saying that you do not know what "non-material" even is, yet you claim this energy is "nonmaterial" anyway? That is overreaching...

So, how can you say that something immaterial did not create everything when energy is nonmaterial?

Because I don't claim that energy is nonmaterial.

In fact, the only way for man to exist as a free will agent is for a nonmaterial God to create man as an individual entity with free will.

Biblically this was achieved "from the dust of the earth"? That means material was used to create "man".

Not as you argue..."from nonmaterial".


Biblically the God itself was seen as a material being on many occasion...there is much wanting in your particular version of events re this supposed immaterial god...

[William]

Incorrect, you are not understanding the fundamental nature of quantum mechanics.

Look, Pot, since Kettle is the only one willing to engage with you at the moment, why not give him a fair shake?

Jezz Flame! That was a bit hot!

[Difflugia]

Okay, let me arrange this in a helpful way (for my mind at least) and let's make sure we are understanding each other. The overarching question is: why is there a physical universe at all?

I agree.

The default answer, I think, is "I don't know". This thread seems to have been created to analyze proposed atheistic answers to the question.

I agree.

One level of this question regards whether there is a logically possible atheistic answer. Difflugia, you seem to me to be saying that since we don't know that quantum events are caused, the possibility that the universe is also uncaused and no god exists is still logically possible. I agree.

What I'm saying is slightly stronger than that. I'm saying that though we don't know whether quantum events are caused or uncaused, the evidence more strongly suggests they are uncaused. Though there are other things going on, I think this is the crux of our disagreement.

If you want to end things there, okay, but you would probably also agree that some theistic answers are also logically possible.

I agree with this.

And, so, we are still at the default "I don't know" answer to the question. I think our beliefs should go beyond logical possibility, though, so I'd like to go further in our analysis.

I'm saying you can't support rejection of the causal principle (as more than a logical possibility) by saying "there is no cause" is the null hypothesis. Doing so misapplies the conceptual tool of 'null hypothesis,' which itself works within causal regularity.

I don't think it does. If your hypothesis is that there is a cause, then the null hypothesis is that there is no cause. I feel like you're trying to word game yourself out of that conclusion. The concept of a null hypothesis only requires "causal regularity" to be true in the case of its rejection. If we're expressing it as part of a drug trial, for example, the hypothesis is that Tylenol reduces the severity of headaches. The null hypothesis is simply that it does not. If the trial data are such that our drug has no statistically significant effect on headache severity, then we accept the null hypothesis that doesn't work. Even if I presume that there's some cause for headaches and a way to cause them to stop, those presumptions isn't necessary to the conclusion that our drug doesn't do anything.

Before we even tentatively say that nothing stops headaches, we should probably try a few more things. At some point, though, when we've tried many more things, we'll hit a point where "nothing works" starts to fill more of the probability pie.

The data we have is not that quantum events are uncaused, but that they may be uncaused.

You're playing word games now. What you're claiming as an important truth for your argument is true for any scientific conclusion. The data suggest that the Sun may be composed principally of helium. The data suggest that bacteria and viruses may be responsible for many diseases. The data suggest that turning on a light switch may be responsible for the light turning on. None of these are proven, but every time we test, that's how things shake out.

Building another conclusion (such as that it's likely the universe was uncaused) would be speculation.

Do you think that light propagation requires a material medium? When we test, we don't find one. How many different ways do we need to test before the conclusion is more than speculation?

P1 does not pick out efficient causation alone, but uses 'cause' more generally within the metaphysical causal principle. The conditions of the quantum vacuum are required for the fluctuations to take place, even if they occur randomly. Take the vacuum away and, logically, there won't be fluctuations from it. The vacuum is a necessary cause in that sense (and the ancients named that kind of cause a 'material' cause).

Then there is nowhere in the universe to test if things can come into existence without a cause. Even if it's true that everything in the universe must be caused by fluctuations in the quantum vacuum, then that still gives us exactly zero information about things that begin to exist outside of the universe, like the universe itself. The universe simply isn't in the set of things to which P1 applies.

we are able to experimentally see where quantum fluctuations actually come from

The bolded part of your statement isn't true.

It's not true if you are talking about efficient cause, but it's true if you are understanding and using 'cause' in the more general sense that the Kalam does.

There are no experimental data showing us "where quantum fluctuations actually come from," regardless of how I imagine that you're using the word "cause." That may be a limitation of my imagination and where one of our fundamental differences arises, but I suspect that if that's true, then we're just back to the Kalam being meaningless as opposed to false or falsifiable.

This conflates empirical causality with the metaphysical causal principle. If immaterial things began to exist, the causal principle would say those things also need a cause. That means it isn't just constrained to things within our physical universe. While it may be untrue, it isn't meaningless.

I literally have no clue what distinction you're trying to make and what meaning I should derive from that. It really sounds to me like you're trying to claim some philosophical principle that transcends data collection and analysis. If that's the case, then I likely won't find any conclusions you draw from it at all convincing.

To avoid an infinite regress there has to be a timelessly eternal thing. This isn't special pleading, but logical analysis of the concepts themselves.

"Timelessly eternal" is an oxymoron by my definitions of those two words. If something is eternal, it's not timeless. If something is timeless or "outside of time," it can't be eternal.

If you can find definitions for "timeless" and "eternal" that are both mutually compatible and meaningful within the current context, I'll listen.