How did the Universe come to be?

Post Reply New Topic

>>Well forget the electromagnetic fields. A vaccume pump can pump the stuff out of
a chamber(universe A) to another chamber(universe B).<<

How?

>>Sounds like you support "string theory". Because otherwise your example does not explain something coming from noithing.<<

I am sorry I did not explain it clearly enough. The hardest part of making something come from nothing is the "creating the nothing" part. The closer you get to having a vacuum, the harder it will be to get those last few particles out of the vacuum- this is Heisenberg's Uncertainty.

Once you get past uncertainty and have a true vacuum of truly nothingness, then it is quite easy to create a universe from scratch.

>>I'm an atheist an want be asking God for any answers.<<

I am very sorry to hear you're an athiest because that limits your capacity for understanding: you can never take that last leap and connect the whole of science to a greater force and get a true understanding of the universe.

No I kinda like the "limits on my capacity for understanding" part of atheism. I do not
have all the answers that you are blessed with. But the only answers I want are the truth. If swiss cheese science and religion is the answer I choose no answers.

I agree with all of you. I also agree with the following story, which (unsuprisingly) hasn't been posted yet.

DOGMA III - HISTORY #2, "COSMOGONY"

which is not the same as DOGMA I - METAPHYSICS #2, "COSMOLOGY" (Book of Uterus)

In the beginning there was VOID, who had two daughters; one (the smaller) was that of BEING, named ERIS, and one (the larger) was of NON-BEING, named ANERIS. (To this day, the fundamental truth that Aneris is the larger is apparent to all who compare the great number of things that do not exist with the comparatively small number of things that do exist.)

Eris had been born pregnant, and after 55 years (Goddesses have an unusually long gestation period-- longer even than elephants), Her pregnancy bore the fruits of many things. These things were composed of the Five Basic Elements, SWEET, BOOM, PUNGENT, PRICKLE, and ORANGE. Aneris, however, had been created sterile. When she saw Eris enjoying Herself so greatly with all of the existent things She had borne, Aneris became jealous and finally one day she stole some existent things and changed them into non- existent things and claimed them as her own children. This deeply hurt Eris, who felt that Her sister was unjust (being so much larger anyway) to deny Her her small joy. And so She made herself swell again to bear more things. And She swore that no matter how many of her begotten that Aneris would steal, She would beget more. And, in return, Aneris swore that no matter how many existent things Eris brought forth, she would eventually find them and turn them into non-existent things for her own. (And to this day, things appear and disappear in this very manner.)

At first, the things brought forth by Eris were in a state of chaos and went in every which way, but by the by She began playing with them and ordered some of them just to see what would happen. Some pretty things arose from this play and for the next five zillion years She amused Herself by creating order. And so She grouped some things with others and some groups with others, and big groups with little groups, and all combinations until She had many grand schemes which delighted Her.

Engrossed in establishing order, She finally one day noticed disorder (previously not apparent because everything was chaos). There were many ways in which chaos was ordered and many ways in which it was not.

"Hah," She thought, "Here shall be a new game."

And She taught order and disorder to play with each other in contest games, and to take turns amusing each other. She named the side of disorder after Herself, "ERISTIC" because Being is anarchic. And then, in a mood of sympathy for Her lonely sister, She named the other side "ANERISTIC" which flattered Aneris and smoothed the friction a little that was between them.

Now all of this time, Void was somewhat disturbed. He felt unsatisfied for he had created only physical existence and physical non- existence, and had neglected the spiritual. As he contemplated this, a great Quiet was caused and he went into a state of Deep Sleep which lasted for 5 eras. At the end of this ordeal, he begat a brother to Eris and Aneris, that of SPIRITUALITY, who had no name at all.

When the sisters heard this, they both confronted Void and pleaded that he not forget them, his First Born. And so Void decreed thus:

That this brother, having no form, was to reside with Aneris in Non-Being and then to leave her and, so that he might play with order and disorder, reside with Eris in Being. But Eris became filled with sorrow when She heard this and then began to weep.

"Why are you despondent?" demanded Void, "Your new brother will have his share with you." "But Father, Aneris and I have been arguing, and she will take him from me when she discovers him, and cause him to return to Non- Being." "I see,"replied Void, "Then I decree the following:

"When your brother leaves the residence of Being, he shall not reside again in Non-Being, but shall return to Me, Void, from whence he came. You girls may bicker as you wish, but My son is your Brother and We are all of Myself."

And so it is that we, as men, do not exist until we do; and then it is that we play with our world of existent things, and order and disorder them, and so it shall be that non-existence shall take us back from existence and that nameless spirituality shall return to Void, like a tired child home from a very wild circus.

Everything is true--everything is permissible! -Hassan i Sabbah


~~~fun, huh?

This is a faulty argument. You have a POCKET of nothingness, which is different from absolute nothingness. It is a convenient opening to fit God into the explanation.



This is based on a misunderstanding of langauge. Just because there are some situations in which there is a "why" explanation available, does NOT mean that every situation has a "why" explanation available. We just think there is because we cannot seperate the situations properly. Your statement that there needs to be a "why" is convenient opening to fit God into the explanation.



There is only a premise here, no support. There is no "gotta" to why our brains need more than organic chemistry. Why does there need to be? Only because you believe in God, which is not an argument in itself. Also, it is possible to account for our free will, I refer you to Daniel Dennet for some good arguments. Your belief that we cannot account for free will is another convenient opening to push God into the explanation.



Distance also seperates us, it is not just time. The sixth dimension you speak about is outside of our universe. Omnipotence and Omnipresence must be proved before this sixth dimension can exist, it cannot be taken a priori.

Why must there be more to life than coincidence? Again, a unjustified argument based on the belief in God. It is a belief that convieniently makes God an explanation.

I do not see how believing in God makes you more intelligent, it only leaves a lot of open ended arguments that remain unjustified, along with unanswered rhetorical questions.

jonathan79 writes:
>>This is a faulty argument. You have a POCKET of nothingness, which is different from absolute nothingness. It is a convenient opening to fit God into the explanation.<<

I agree. However, I was answering the initial question "I wonder how something can be created from nothingness", not "I wonder how this universe got here from nothingness".

>>Just because there are some situations in which there is a "why" explanation available, does NOT mean that every situation has a "why" explanation available. We just think there is because we cannot seperate the situations properly. Your statement that there needs to be a "why" is convenient opening to fit God into the explanation.<<

As long as the universe is logical, then "why" is a valid question. And everything in the universe is logical except self-awareness. So self-awareness is either divine or a mistake.

I am even willing to accept that "self-awareness is a mistake" provided you can answer "why did the universe come to be" because otherwise all you're doing in casting doubt and this is unscientific.

Presenting arguments but no counterpoints and attacking theory without any of your own is falsification and since the universe tangably exists, it is not falsifiable... this is like holding an apple in your hand and saying "prove to me I am holding an apple".

As self-aware, sentient beings, it is our responsibility to ask where all this stuff came from and to that end we have the tool of science. Science is a tool and not an answer because science itself is provisional. As such, if one took a strictly scientific approach to the universe, one could never get an answer... if not because the Big Bang (and its contents) are unexplainable by science then because the existence of a universe itself is... there is no reason our universe should be here. But it is.

Science will be an answer and not a tool when it can explain pi.

Would you agree with this statement: "The job of science is to explain the physical universe. Wherever science leaves off, God picks up the slack"?

>>Your belief that we cannot account for free will is another convenient opening to push God into the explanation.<<

So you're not convinced that God exists and free-will is intentional until God personally tells you so, right?

>>Distance also seperates us, it is not just time. The sixth dimension you speak about is outside of our universe. Omnipotence and Omnipresence must be proved before this sixth dimension can exist, it cannot be taken a priori.<<

With enough time, any distance can be covered. I am amazed you didn't have a problem with my saying time machines already exist as a functional part of the universe. As far as the sixth dimension itself, no human words can fully explain it simply because we're only in four dimensions. I'll try:

The sixth dimension is "alltime, allplace". In other words, it's "everywhere, all the time". If you set up a camera on Main Street and kept the shutter open for 100 years, the resulting image would show 100 years-worth of time within that space. Now if you had an infinity of cameras everywhere with the shutter open forever then you combined all these images into one, you'd have a picture of the sixth dimension.

Can you prove the sixth dimension exists to four dimensional beings? Can you prove that "depth" exists to flatlanders? Can you prove to a fish that he is in the water? Can you prove that you love your parents? Can you prove the sun will come up tomorrow? Can you prove you're holding an apple in your hand?

I'll bite. Here's a scenario:

You're standing on the moon in your spacesuit. You grab one end of a really long rope then fire your thrusters shooting you straight off into space. You get to the end of the rope- some 93 million miles away and pick up the slack. In other words, you're floating in space holding a rope that's attached to the moon.

You pull on the rope. That pull-energy travels down the rope at light speed, reaches the moon and comes back in reverse. In other words, you try pulling on the moon and the moon ends up pulling you.

If the rope is 93 million miles long, and the pull-energy moves at light speed (93 million miles per second), what actually happens is:
-You pull the rope
-Nothing happens for two seconds
-Two seconds later you're pulled back

How do you explain this obvious breach of conservation?

>>Why must there be more to life than coincidence? Again, a unjustified argument based on the belief in God. It is a belief that convieniently makes God an explanation.<<

There has to be more to life than coincidence because self-awareness is bad for the universe, it leads to self-destruction. The universe is perfectly harmonious without us self-aware humans in it. If we blew up the Earth tomorrow, the universe would simply keep going.

No animal, vegetable or mineral ever asks "why", only self-aware being have that capacity. Having the capacity to ask why leads to knowledge, and there is validity to knowledge because we get tangable results from good information.

On the most fundamental level, I say there's gotta be more to life than coincidence because if the universe is nothing but a coincidence, then how did it come into being? How do you get something (the universe) from nothing (an unquantified void)?

I hope you did not take offense; I enjoy a good debate. But fundamentally, science does not provide answers but points you towards them. And with more science comes more indicators; more verifications of theories. But a leap of faith is required to cross the gap between "the universe" and "fundamental knowledge" and as self-aware, tangable beings, our job is to account for everything in the universe then use that information to conclude where we fit into it.

If you are looking for answers, then science is not the way to get them- keep in mind science still hasn't conclusively proven the Earth is really round.

You did not answer how something can be created from nothingness, you got something from somewhere else and filled in nothingness, you did not create anything, merely brought in something that was already created. If I have an empty glass of water, then the question is, how to fill it up without pouring water in from another glass, which is what you did.



You have provided no arguments yourself, you simply state a premise then leave it answered. Why must the universe be logical? You are trying to add something extra, so that must be proved. I am not adding anything extra, so there is no need to prove it. I do not need to prove that there isn´t a pink elephant in the room when no one is there, but if you claim there is one, it must be shown. Casting doubt that there isn´t a pink elephant in the room is not unscientific, but claiming there is one is very unscientific. You are mixing up the role of "doubt" in our lives.

Your whole argument is based on the premise that the universe is "logical", this is something extra that mus be proved. You are the one who is providing unjustified arguments. Logical existence in the universe is not a given, like holding an apple in your hand.

Self awareness is neither divine or a "mistake", you are mixing up the uses of the words here. Self awareness is the product of evolution. Creatures that were more self aware had a better chance of survival. This is not a "mistake" in the sense that you are using it, but it was not purposeful either.

Can you answer how the question "Why did the universe come to be?" is a legitimate one? No. The fact that you claim it is legimate is not a justification. There is no "why", there is a "how", but not a "why". You are mixing up cause and justification. You are making up a priori questions which is not scientific. I am saying that you must prove your unjusitified justification, which is very scientific.

Love is not logical, neither is beauty, friendship, or companionship. Quatum mechanics is not logical either. Yes, the universe does exist, but this does not prove that it is logical, no more than the existence of a rock proves that it is logical.




This statement contradicts your statement above. If science is not an answer, then no amount of logical inquiry will get us anywhere. Why should there be a reason why the universe is here? Again, your premise relies on an unjustified belief. You believe there HAS to be a "why". I don´t.

Your arugment that science needs to explain pi to be an answer is wrong. The failure of science to explain pi is not a scientific shortcoming, it is man´s shortcoming. You misunderstand to the role of mathematics on our life.

And no, I would not agree that "God picks up the slack", because he does not pick up the slack at all. To say that God is an answer is no answer at all. I say that the Diety "§§§§" answers all my unanswered questions, everything stops with him. Have I answered anything at all? No.




Where did I say that? You are making up arguments for me. I don´t believe there is a God, and that free will can be explained by the process of natural selection. Free will and an omnicscient God is a contradiction. You must prove that it is not in order to claim both. http://www.wrongplanet.net/asperger.htm ... ht=#199315



Theres the problem right there. "No human words can fully explain it", then you say, "here let me explain it to you". Either you an explain it or you can´t, theres not middle position here. Time machines do exist in wormholes, but they are not instantaneous, it will still take time to get from A to B, however, your argument of "alltime, allplace" denies that anytime would elapse. The problem is, is that no human can experience the "combined images" all at once, making your argument mute. You rely on the existence of God. God´s existence must be proved before such an argument is presented. You cannot take Gods existence a priori then use him as a justification.

I believe in the Diety "§§§§" He told me that all of your arguments are wrong. I do not prove his existence, I merely tell you what he tells me. Now, are you wrong? Am I wrong? Who is right? Using a God as an argument is no argument at all. For whatever you say, I can claim that "§§§§" told me the opposite. You cannot prove that "§§§§" does not exist. Now, who is right?




What breach of conservation? Your argument makes no sense. If I pull on the rope, it will not pull back. Try tying a rope to a brick wall and see if it pulls you forward. Yes the wall will "pull back" (science 101), but not in the sense that you claim. It will not pull me to the ground.

Your example does not take into the account if the rope has slack or not. If it has not slack, it will not take anytime for the energy to move down the rope. If there is slack, there will be at least a few hundred miles of slack in a rope 93 million miles long!! !!



You still rely on an unjustified argument to say that there is a "why". Why must there be more to life than coincidence? I ask you how do you get God from nothing? And your answer will be, "well, he has always existed", which is not an answer at all. You simply push back the answer to an unjustified explanation. Why isn´it the case that the universe has just always existed? This explanation is much simpler because it makes more sense to have an imperfect creation from nowhere, than a perfect Diety appear out of nowhere.

Why does opium put people to sleep? "Because it has the power to put people to sleep." There is no answer here at all, just the pushing back of the question one step further.




Again, why do we need to account for everything in the universe? You provide another unjustified a priori statement in order to prove your conclusions. Of course science can´t prove the earth is round, no more than one can "prove you are holding an apple in your hand". These statements are beyond proof, they are the statements on which things can be proved rely. You mix up the role of "given" propositions with those that can be proved (the role of the word "know" in grammer). "Given" propositions cannot be proved, because if everything could be proved, then nothing could be proved, you would have an infinite regress. Not everything can be investigated, otherwise nothing could be.

However, you also mix up "given" propositions with those that are not. For instance, the "why" questions you use to justify your statements are not "given". They are not empirically verifiable. To see that the earth is round, we simply look at a photograph of it. To see that someone is holding an apple, we simply look at them. You cannot just "look" at the universe and determine that there are "why" questions everywhere. These are not empirically verifiable, thus they are not "given".

Your premise that life must have meaning (the "why") is based on a misunderstanding of langauge and how it properly functions. There is not a "why" in every situation, although we believe there is becuase we transfer this belief from other areas. http://www.wrongplanet.net/asperger.htm ... ht=#196200

And yes, a "leap of faith" is necessary in order to bridge the gaps at this point in time. But look at the past, all these leaps of faith were wrong. God was not gravity, a God did not make the sun rise, God did not cause mental illnesses. Just wait, whatever science has not answered will be answered later when we have the technology to do so.

You have good thoughts, but they rely on the premise that there is a "why" in the universe, I don´t. This debate will go nowhere as long as these fundamental positions remain the same. You can have the last word.

Big Bang 101 @ NASA: http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bb1.html

How can we have a conversation when you don't even think the universe makes sense?

To be honest I only read the last few post on this topic when I first posted not
thinking of the forum (Politics,Philosophy,Religion) and assumed it was about
science. In fairness as an atheist I should not post on this topic in this forum. If
the thread was in a science forum it would be okay. Let put the science in the
science forum and if people want to talk religion let them speak here. There is
no reason why a theist should be forced to use science to defend his faith either.
I will talk on other points mentioned . Freewill is debated by many. Do we have
a choice? My opinion is no.

I think the Bhagavad Gita makes reference to, I’m not sure, a “kulpa,” a thousand thousand years or some such long period of time. If I remember correctly, it is the period of time god “sleeps” and the universe ceases to exist. Ah, here it is, Kal´pa
n. 1. (Hind. Myth.) One of the Brahmanic eons, a period of 4,320,000,000 years. At the end of each Kalpa the world is annihilated.
Consider the possibility that each big bang is followed by a big collapse and another big bang. During the time of big collapse, matter reaches infinite density, zero or infinitesimal size, and space/time ceases to exist for a moment or an eternity. I like this idea because it’s like breathing, in…, out…, in…, out…, yin & yang.

You're right. Don't think about it too much, because once you truely believe that you don't exist, the universe will have a fatal existance error and disappear.

I think this is actually very close to the truth.

When you dream, do you not manufacture the dream in your own mind?
And yet, if you are anything like me, I imagine your dreams are always full of suprises.

This is a question that Stephen Hawking has pondered. Even he can't come up with an answer. What makes anyone here think they're qualified to answer this question??

Barracuda- You're pretty much on trach with that one. Once the universe becomes quantified, reality will break down. Good thing pi is infinite.

spacemonkey- awesome user name btw. There is only one tangable universe- this one. There may be infinite alternate universes or "infinite branes" or whatever you call it but only one tangable univerese. As such, this is the only universe that has energy, all the others are theoretical universes.

You're walking down the street. Your next move can be a step forward, backwards, sideways or no step at all. While these may all occur in alternate universes, the fact remains only one of them will have energy- this one and there is only one reality: here.

As such, anything is possible within the universe, but there is only one logical, tangable outcome.

I think you have confused my post with someone else.

Glad you like the name, Thanks !

ladakh, I was joking, but that wouldn't be the first time I made something up and it turned out to be (at least partly) true.

I have a bit of a fastination with the "how do I know that you don't really exist, and that I'm making this up" concept.