Thoughts on the Existence of the Universe

[Randy Carson]

Did the universe begin to exist at some point? Or has it always existed?

Science seems to be leaning in the direction of a single point of beginning for space, time and all matter. The moment when all this came into existence is known as the "Big Bang".

But why did this happen?

It's reasonable to say that whatever begins to exist must have a cause. And since the universe began to exist, the universe had a cause.

If this is true, then what more can we say about this cause?

If something exists, there must also exist that which is necessary for that thing to exist. As we have already agreed, the universe - the collection of beings in space and time - exists. Therefore, there must exist what it takes for the universe to exist. Moreover, what it takes for the universe to exist cannot exist within the universe itself or be bounded by space and time. Therefore, what it takes for the universe to exist must transcend both space and time.

So, given that the universe exists, we know that it had a cause which transcends both space and time.

And this transcendent cause is what we call "God".

[Mike Cl]

Did the universe begin to exist at some point? Or has it always existed?

Science seems to be leaning in the direction of a single point of beginning for space, time and all matter. The moment when all this came into existence is known as the "Big Bang".

But why did this happen?

Whatever begins to exist must have a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe had a cause.

If this is true, then what more can we say about this cause?

If something exists, there must also exist that which is necessary for that thing to exist.
The universe - the collection of beings in space and time - exists.
Therefore, there must exist what it takes for the universe to exist.
What it takes for the universe to exist cannot exist within the universe itself or be bounded by space and time.
Therefore, what it takes for the universe to exist must transcend both space and time.

So, given that the universe exists, we know that it had a cause which transcends both space and time.

And this transcendent cause is what we call "God".

Good piece of self delusion, Randy.  Seems like you are a good little christian.  Only problem with you little story is that that is what it is--a story.  The universe could have been formed from the stuff of another universe--some think that black holes suck in energy, and at a certain point that energy breaks away and forms another universe.  Hence the big bang--and that energy does not need to come from super-natural or other than natural sources.  God is not needed.  If you prefer to think god is needed, then where did god come from?  Another god?  Is your god like the nesting Russian dolls, except in an infinite fashion?  Seems so.

[stromboli]

Stephen Hawking
http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-origin-of-the-universe.html

If one believed that the universe had a beginning, the obvious question was what happened before the beginning? What was God doing before He made the world? Was He preparing Hell for people who asked such questions? The problem of whether or not the universe had a beginning was a great concern to the German philosopher, Immanuel Kant. He felt there were logical contradictions, or antimonies, either way. If the universe had a beginning, why did it wait an infinite time before it began? He called that the thesis. On the other hand, if the universe had existed for ever, why did it take an infinite time to reach the present stage? He called that the antithesis. Both the thesis and the antithesis depended on Kant's assumption, along with almost everyone else, that time was Absolute. That is to say, it went from the infinite past to the infinite future, independently of any universe that might or might not exist in this background. This is still the picture in the mind of many scientists today.

However in 1915, Einstein introduced his revolutionary General Theory of Relativity. In this, space and time were no longer Absolute, no longer a fixed background to events. Instead, they were dynamical quantities that were shaped by the matter and energy in the universe. They were defined only within the universe, so it made no sense to talk of a time before the universe began. It would be like asking for a point south of the South Pole. It is not defined. If the universe was essentially unchanging in time, as was generally assumed before the 1920s, there would be no reason that time should not be defined arbitrarily far back. Any so-called beginning of the universe would be artificial, in the sense that one could extend the history back to earlier times. Thus it might be that the universe was created last year, but with all the memories and physical evidence, to look like it was much older. This raises deep philosophical questions about the meaning of existence. I shall deal with these by adopting what is called, the positivist approach. In this, the idea is that we interpret the input from our senses in terms of a model we make of the world. One can not ask whether the model represents reality, only whether it works. A model is a good model if first it interprets a wide range of observations, in terms of a simple and elegant model. And second, if the model makes definite predictions that can be tested and possibly falsified by observation.

The other interpretation of our results, which is favored by most scientists, is that it indicates that the General Theory of Relativity breaks down in the very strong gravitational fields in the early universe. It has to be replaced by a more complete theory. One would expect this anyway, because General Relativity does not take account of the small scale structure of matter, which is governed by quantum theory. This does not matter normally, because the scale of the universe is enormous compared to the microscopic scales of quantum theory. But when the universe is the Planck size, a billion  trillion trillionth of a centimeter, the two scales are the same, and quantum theory has to be taken into account.

In order to understand the Origin of the universe, we need to combine the General Theory of Relativity with quantum theory. The best way of doing so seems to be to use Feynman's idea of a sum over histories. Richard Feynman was a colorful character, who played the bongo drums in a strip joint in Pasadena, and was a brilliant physicist at the California Institute of Technology. He proposed that a system got from a state A, to a state B, by every possible path or history. Each path or history has a certain amplitude or intensity, and the probability of the system going from A- to B, is given by adding up the amplitudes for each path. There will be a history in which the moon is made of blue cheese, but the amplitude is low, which is bad news for mice.

As pointed out we don't know the conditions prior to the universe existing. That by no means proves the existence of a god or any cause that we can easily label. The jury is still out. God is an assumption. It is no more supported by any evidence than any other claim. I'll let the physicists on here elaborate. But Stephen Hawking is a person I'd listen to before a theist with considerably less knowledge.

[Randy Carson]

Good piece of self delusion, Randy.  Seems like you are a good little christian.  Only problem with you little story is that that is what it is--a story.  The universe could have been formed from the stuff of another universe--some think that black holes suck in energy, and at a certain point that energy breaks away and forms another universe.  Hence the big bang--and that energy does not need to come from super-natural or other than natural sources.  God is not needed.  If you prefer to think god is needed, then where did god come from?  Another god?  Is your god like the nesting Russian dolls, except in an infinite fashion?  Seems so.

If this universe formed from the stuff of another universe, then what caused THAT previous universe to come into existence? Or the one before that? Or the one before that?

And at some point, wouldn't the Second Law of Thermodynamics require that this chain of universes eventually run out of usable energy? If so, the system would have gone cold and dark long, long ago.

As for God, He did NOT begin to exist. That's kinda the whole point. An eternal, pre-existing "cause" is necessary to bring all subsequent stuff into existence.

[Randy Carson]

As pointed out we don't know the conditions prior to the universe existing. That by no means proves the existence of a god or any cause that we can easily label. The jury is still out. God is an assumption. It is no more supported by any evidence than any other claim. I'll let the physicists on here elaborate. But Stephen Hawking is a person I'd listen to before a theist with considerably less knowledge.

What existed prior to the beginning of the universe?

And if the conditions changed such that the universe came into existence, why? What caused the change in conditions?

Ice changes to water. Why? Heat is added. Seeds turn into plants. Why? Food, sunlight and a favorable atmosphere are available.

If nothing existed prior to the beginning of the universe, then no "conditions" existed, either. No heat. No cold. No nutrients.  No building blocks of life. No elements of the periodic table.

And yet, from nothing, the universe came into existence. Why?

[SGOS]

What existed prior to the beginning of the universe?

And if the conditions changed such that the universe came into existence, why? What caused the change in conditions?

Ice changes to water. Why? Heat is added. Seeds turn into plants. Why? Food, sunlight and a favorable atmosphere are available.

If nothing existed prior to the beginning of the universe, then no "conditions" existed, either. No heat. No cold. No nutrients.  No building blocks of life. No elements of the periodic table.

And yet, from nothing, the universe came into existence. Why?

You are asking specific questions that we don't know the answers to.  It's possible the we can't know the answers ever, although I'd bet that we will answer some of them.  Your biggest mistake is that you are inserting assumptions into your questions such as "something had to come before the universe."  I know this seems necessary because of mankind's limited experiences (and mankind's experiences are limited indeed).  But it's quite possible these assumptions are not even relevant to the questions.  You simply put those assumptions in there, more because you want them there, rather than that they have to be there.

I know with limited knowledge and without any evidence, the temptation to need a cause seems compelling, but it's a philosophical question.  There is just no evidence either way.  But claiming, "It just has to be," when you don't know anything about it, isn't justified.  Unfortunately, the answer remains, "You don't know,"  and that's as far as anyone can take it at this time. 

The best in the field of physics and cosmology have made a good case that time is a property of the universe, and came into existence when the universe came into existence.  Time is a property of the universe.  At first glance, us "not so smart people" tend to think the opposite, that the universe is a property of time.  We want to think this is true, because we can't wrap our minds around anything else.  We want a before, when without time, there can be no before.  But not being able to wrap our minds around that is nothing more than flaw in our own limitations.

The human tendency is to solve the human problem of limited experience with questions we can't answer is to ask the same question over and over in an infinite regression, each time with a new twist of a, "Yeah, but..", which keeps digging deeper and deeper and relying more and more on our limited comprehension.  With a little thought, we can see that infinite regressions are pointless constructs invented by unsatisfied minds.  We want an answer to an unanswerable question so much that we end up inventing a convenient answer that is totally lacking in evidence, but does afford a feeling of satisfaction that we have invented a reality that we now have some control over.  But that's a pipe dream.  We are all products of reality.  Reality is not something we can invent to satisfy our needs.

[kilodelta]

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

[Baruch]

If this universe formed from the stuff of another universe, then what caused THAT previous universe to come into existence? Or the one before that? Or the one before that?

And at some point, wouldn't the Second Law of Thermodynamics require that this chain of universes eventually run out of usable energy? If so, the system would have gone cold and dark long, long ago.

As for God, He did NOT begin to exist. That's kinda the whole point. An eternal, pre-existing "cause" is necessary to bring all subsequent stuff into existence.

Very good questions ... not well answered by the scientists, except to say "future discoveries will clarify everything" ... if you give us enough research money and time.

Assuming that we can deal with this empirically, rather than with math-magic ... there is no direct evidence for what happened before the 3K radiation event (when the universe cooled enough for the electrons to rejoin with the nuclei (of mostly hydrogen and helium).  There is indirect evidence for what happened earlier, even much earlier ... if you equate what happens in the LHC ... with what happened in the early universe.  We will never have direct observation of what happens in the Earth's core or the Solar core ... but we have a good idea.  The question is how much credence do you give to indirect evidence.  Denial of direct evidence is clearly ... insane.  Denial of indirect evidence (seismic info on the Earth's interior) is dicey.  I would put the reliability of indirect evidence at greater than 50% but less than 100% ... because laboratory conditions, even the LHC, do not directly correlate with large scale physical phenomena.  The assumption that they do is reductionism, which is a hypothesis not a proven law.  Reductionism works a lot of the time ... but not all the time in my experience.

I see no direct evidence, or reliable indirect evidence for prior or parallel universes.  There is only one empirical universe.  The very idea of prior or parallel universes makes a mockery of the scientific method ... the very idea of physical laws being possible at all.  Some embrace the notion that there are no permanent physical laws, that they vary over time, over location or over different universes.  This violates the principle of uniformitarianism ... a vital part of the scientific method.

Once we have the 3K event, then there are subsequent processes, that can be observed directly, that show such things as phase changes.  There are no violations after that, of the conservation of mass-energy.  The limited exception might be gravitational waves, as a local violation, but that would be consistent with the QM principle of virtual particles and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.  The laws of Thermodynamics are dicey ... in that they only apply to local regions of space time, like a hot cup of coffee.  If the system is closed, rather than open to some external environment ... then net entropy doesn't change ... it can't.  Entropy can only change locally, applying that concept to a closed universe is inconsistent.  But the universe might be open ... then entropy becomes a vital issue again.  Life occurs where there is a local reversal of entropy ... work is done by a living organism, that increases the order or concentrates the heat that is trying to disperse.

As far as "why" goes, science doesn't answer that.  Only the "what", "where" and "when".  "How", "why" and "who" are questions involving "persons" which in reductionist science don't exist.  Those questions belong to a part of epistemology outside of the scientific method.  This is why psychology, sociology, economics etc can never be real sciences.  Physical science assumes that if all you have is a hammer (with kinetic energy) every thing is a nail.

In a sense, the 3K radiation field represents the boundary of what we can know of the past.  G-d can handle boundaries to open or closed universes.  An closed universe is one with a boundary for all past-going trajectories and all future-going trajectories.  But an open universe can have all past-going trajectories meeting a boundary ... as long as at least one future-going trajectory is not ended on a boundary.  A chess board can have rules, yet there is free will between the players.  And a chess board is an example of a closed universe.  Imagine a chess board that is bounded at each player, but going to infinity to the right or left ... that would be an open universe.  Physical science would model the chess game as a deterministic algorithm (though some games would end in draw instead of checkmate).  Like to chess computers playing each other.  But then someone had to program the chess computers ... unless we can accept an endless backward series of computer programs that write other computer programs ;-)  I think chess was invented by humans, just as physical law is an invention of humans ... physical law being a game, which involves physical reality rather than chess pieces and a chess board ... and which allows far more free moves than chess.  But there are players in both cases, persons.

The notion of creation metaphysically has to be tied to both providence and destruction.  I focus on providence, rather than creation or destruction because I am not fixated on linear time ... the here and now are more important to me.  If G-d wasn't the flip side to the here and now, then I wouldn't bother.  A G-d that is only past or only future is schizophrenic.  For a Christian, if Jesus isn't alive (to you), here and now, then you worship in vain.  For me, if G-d wasn't alive (actually The Life), then my spirituality would be in vain.  Dead prophets and messiahs who never arrive, are of no use to me.

[SGOS]

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

Excellent!

[Randy Carson]

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

Atheism, Evidence, and the “God-of-the-Gaps”
http://www.strangenotions.com/god-of-the-gaps/

[kilodelta]

No more is really needed. We really don't know what was "before the universe" or "what's outside of space-time."  Putting a god in there is the classic "god of the gaps" fallacy.

Why isn't "I don't know" sufficient? An admitted gap of knowledge is better than claiming a hypothesis as a fact. An intellectually honest person would put their ideas into terms such as "may have" or "may be" until it can be proven. What you have presented is a logical argument with some major assumptions. I cannot disprove your hypothesis of a god outside of space-time. But, I don't see enough to accept it either.

You then go on to apply to special pleading where your god idea does not need a cause, but the universe does. If we were to accept that there was something, some non-thing, or some god that did not need a cause, there is no reason to think it couldn't have been just another form of the universe that did not need a cause. But then again, I don't know. You post is more pondering the unknown with your religion inserted. Perhaps you're right. But, my observations of natural processes that do not require an intelligence to function lead me to hypothesize that the start of the universe as we know it did not require an intelligent creator.

If and when we discover an intelligence creator of the universe, we can examine and consider what it is. At this point, it's mere fantasy.

[kilodelta]

Atheism, Evidence, and the “God-of-the-Gaps”
http://www.strangenotions.com/god-of-the-gaps/

That's essentially a complaint about the high standard of evidence required to support the amazing claim of an intelligent creator. And yes. If a being appeared in the sky and spoke to everyone in the world, I would not automatically accept it as the creator of the universe. The phenomenon would have to be investigated. The high standard of evidence for the multitude of definitions of "god" and "intelligent creator" is required because of the major impact it would have on our understanding of the universe. If one were to make a claim of eating pancakes for breakfast ten years ago, I would probably just take it on faith as true enough because it really wouldn't impact me. But, there should be no faith for amazing claims that have major repercussions.

[GSOgymrat]

"I don't understand how saying God is the reason for something rather than nothing explains anything. If "something" created the universe we can call that something God, or The Great Awaken, or The Force... it doesn't really help our understanding. It doesn't indicate there is even any kind of intelligence behind it, as our universe could be a byproduct of a different process that we don't understand. If "God" was intelligent it doesn't mean "God" is even still here, as it could have created the universe and ceased to exist or moved on to create another universe. It doesn't matter if "God" is simple or complex because we don't know anything about it.

God created the universe because that which created the universe is called God." - GSOgymrat

Yes, I've reached the point in this forum where I just cut and paste my own comments.

[SGOS]

Atheism, Evidence, and the “God-of-the-Gaps”
http://www.strangenotions.com/god-of-the-gaps/

More correctly God of the Gaps is just one example of a common fallacy.  It is almost always identified as the Argument from Ignorance in the lists of informal fallacies.  It doesn't apply only to religious arguments.  Any time someone points to an unknown and says, "Therefore it must be <insert any preferred explanation that excludes all other possibilities> is the form the Argument takes:  "No one knows why, so it must be _________."  It remains a fallacy whether it's used by an atheist or a theist.  It is a fallacy irrespective of any class of people when it is used.

However, the author of your link then walks out onto a branch of nonsense and claims that when an atheist identifies the fallacy when used by a theist, it somehow becomes a fallacy of atheism.  However, this is only true if an atheist uses the Argument from Ignorance  to support an unknown.

But correctly identifying a fallacy does nothing to discredit the person or group who identifies it, as the author claims.  He then tries to justify his claim through convoluted examples of how an identification of a fallacy is a fallacy itself.  He included a volume of discussion,  but demonstrates a lack of clear understanding of what identification of a fallacy actually does.

God of the Gaps was probably just an observation pointed out by some skeptic who coined a term that caught on because skeptics have observed that it is so widely used by theists to justify the existence of God.  It is apparently so enticing to theists that it strikes many skeptics as worthy of its own name, even though it's just the Argument from Ignorance.

I have often mused to myself that it seems like theists must seek out lists of common fallacies, and end up thinking of them as useful arguments, rather than fallacies, because fallacies like the God of the Gaps are so phenomenally prevalent in theist arguments.  Apparently, blind faith greatly obscures a fallacy and draws the faithful to it, rather than pointing out the impaired logic of their arguments.

[josephpalazzo]

And yet, from nothing, the universe came into existence. Why?

A lot of good replies were given to your post, so I won't repeat what was already said but I will make two comments on this particular statement. We don't know if the universe came into existence from nothing. It's a possibility, just like it's a possibility the universe always existed and what we see is some of its transformations that have left some imprints for us to investigate. The second point is on the word "why". There are two different why's: one is really a "how" question as in, why is the sky blue. I can describe "how" it looks blue to the human eye. The second meaning to the word "why" relates to a purpose. In that sense, it presupposes that there is a being with an intent: why did the man kill his wife? It wouldn't apply to some thing like a tree: why do trees breath carbon dioxide, is really a "how" question, that is, I can describe how a tree can convert carbon dioxide to oxygen. So when you ask why.... (inject, the universe exists, or the universe came out of nothing) then if you mean how, science can answer that, if not now, but eventually we'll get all the pieces of the puzzle. If you mean why as to a purpose, then you are assuming that there is a being with intent, which obviously you mean a deity. So that question should be addressed to the right entity. So ask your god, why did you create the universe? Maybe one day, he will answer you. As an atheist, I'm not holding my breath and I'm not interested in spending a life time waiting for an answer when I can live it without answering that question.