Thoughts on the Existence of the Universe

[aitm]

One so easily waves away the questions of the existence and/or beginning of the universe because it seems "difficult to understand due to the lack of knowledge about it" then:

suggests that there is an eternal existence that knows all about everything not yet existing, can manipulate all things not yet imagined to exist, create things from nonexistent things based on absolutely no knowledge of the non-existent things and without prior knowledge of nonexistent thing s, create a universe from thoughts that could not exist prior to the knowledge of the existence of anything……….and call us "reaching"….

[Mike Cl]

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.

This is what you are saying: if this god formed from the stuff of another prior god, then what caused THAT previous god 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 gods eventually run out of usable energy? If so, the god system would have gone cold and dark long, long ago.

As for the universe, it 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.


Even with your 'iron clad' argument that god did not pre-exist--and for that there is no evidence at all--the universe simply always was and always will be.  Same argument.  Same result.  No god is necessary. 

You suggest that your god is universal.  Then why did it only come into existence in one spot on the globe?  It happened nowhere else--all of your religious thought has been exported from that one geographical spot.  Strange way for a universal god to introduce himself.  And to this day, the easiest way to predict the religion of a person is to find out where they were born--that, way above all else, determines their religion. 


As for your wonderful, beautiful and righteous jesus, who is/was god and man all at once, we know nothing about him.  All we know is, at best, second hand info--and we all know how that can be distorted.  He wrote nothing that survived.  He recorded nothing that we know of.  He is quite clearly the invention of a group of people from a particular place on this planet for their own purposes.  He can be made to say anything you want him to, for he wrote nothing.  Strange way for a universal god to act.  But, of course, god works in mysterious ways--and it is not for us to question his mysterious ways, but to hear and obey.  Okay--I'd hear and obey if only your wonderful, beautiful, god/man could or would speak.  If he spoke to me, I'd listen.  I'd listen even more intently if he would speak to all of mankind at the same time, with the same message.  And hand me a written set of instructions from his hand.  But, of course, your wonderful, beautiful god/man is simply the result of belief and not reason.  So, you can believe in any type of god you'd like.  I suggest that you leave me out of it, tho, for I don't believe what you have to say; I think what my reason tells me is that you are deeply engaged in wishful thinking.  And I don't want any part of your wishes.

[sdelsolray]

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".

I would need you to back up a bit and explain what you mean by "exists", "begin" and "cause".

That way, folks can better understand what you are trying to argue here.

[sdelsolray]

...
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.

Just not in any way you can demonstrate.

Put another way, mere assertions do not get much traction on this forum.

[Blackleaf]

I find it much more likely that the cause of the universe is not an intelligent thing, but just another thing of nature. We have no reason to assume that this cause has any logic or intelligence behind what it does. It could just as easily be an infinite sea of energy that creates countless universes of every possibility.

Consider this: If God makes choices, then that means that God has a personality. Just as people have a variety of personalities, there were a number of possibilities for what kind of personality God could have ended up having. So then, why don't we have an evil God who just likes to torture people? Maybe, in another universe, there is a God like that. Maybe we actually do have an evil God, and he's simultaneously trying to pretend that he's both good and that he doesn't exist.

But if we can imagine that such gods exist, then we also have to ask this question: Where did God's personality come from? He couldn't have decided on his own personality, because doing so would require him to both be able to change (which he can't, since he's outside of time) and to act based on preferences that he can't have without a personality. Obviously, he must have been intelligently designed by some other being to have the kind of intelligence and personality that he apparently has. But then, for the god of our god, what caused him to exist or to have a personality with which to make decisions with? And what designed the god of the god of our god?

[Baruch]

Cause & effect doesn't mean we have to do the infinite regress syllogism with nature or super-nature.  It is enough that you and I are both god-lings, and we come from our parents (also god-lings) more or less.  I don't have to worry about the infinite future syllogism either.  If we are focussed on the here and now, then what happened long ago or will happen long after ... are a waste of time.  We can treat the universe as simply existing, and you and I simply living .. and go from there.

[GSOgymrat]

I find it much more likely that the cause of the universe is not an intelligent thing, but just another thing of nature. We have no reason to assume that this cause has any logic or intelligence behind what it does. It could just as easily be an infinite sea of energy that creates countless universes of every possibility.

Consider this: If God makes choices, then that means that God has a personality. Just as people have a variety of personalities, there were a number of possibilities for what kind of personality God could have ended up having. So then, why don't we have an evil God who just likes to torture people? Maybe, in another universe, there is a God like that. Maybe we actually do have an evil God, and he's simultaneously trying to pretend that he's both good and that he doesn't exist.

But if we can imagine that such gods exist, then we also have to ask this question: Where did God's personality come from? He couldn't have decided on his own personality, because doing so would require him to both be able to change (which he can't, since he's outside of time) and to act based on preferences that he can't have without a personality. Obviously, he must have been intelligently designed by some other being to have the kind of intelligence and personality that he apparently has. But then, for the god of our god, what caused him to exist or to have a personality with which to make decisions with? And what designed the god of the god of our god?

God's personality reflects the personality of the individual contemplating God, which is why there is no consensus. You can learn a lot about a person based on their idea of God: personal, distant, judging, loving, accepting, exclusionary, organic, dogmatic, past oriented, future oriented, absent, etcetera. The universe is a Rorschach ink blot, God is a response.

[Johan]

Moreover, what it takes for the universe to exist cannot exist within the universe itself or be bounded by space and time.

Says who?

[AllRight]

As an atheist I don't feel it's necessary for me to understand how the universe came into existence but just because I don't understand it doesn't mean I automatically default to there must be an intelligent creator.  I am as much in awe or more so than a religious person that we are even here and believe it is entirely within the realm of science how everything came to be.

[Baruch]

"Moreover, what it takes for the universe to exist cannot exist within the universe itself or be bounded by space and time."

Says who?

Metaphysics.  The whole is greater than the parts.  A biosphere is a greater concept than ape.  There is a hierarchy of concepts.  If the universe is defined by space, time, matter and energy ... then anything that could define what a universe is, would have to be a more abstract concept than "universe".  A definition is more than the sum of the contents.  Reductionism however assumes that a whole is exactly defined by its contents.  That would be like a book, that is only paper and ink ... but the text has no meaning.

[aitm]

it doesn't mean I automatically default to there must be an intelligent creator. 

especially one who can design the universe based on atomic structure which did not exist prior to his thinking of it, which is somewhat incredible in itself…but then to be stymied by vaginal discharges, kind of lowers the bar on the probability of a genius creator.

[knowitall]

What you are saying is basically true. I have actually know these things for a long time now. Yes, the universe must be created in real time-space, since energy generated in creation cannot exist in the abstract beginning. But God the first being has existed forever, and was brought forth in the infinite beginning of the law system itself. So God has been creating universes forever, and the beginning of them can't be found. When one universe has atrophied enough, God draws the elements back in and creates a new one. Yes, in reality there has always been form, just as there have always been created beings. God is the fullness of the law system of existence called the "concept-reality progression." He began in infinity because nothing "is not," and switched immediately to real time because negative time cannot continue.(Time is an unchangeable law called "continuance." It is not dependent on form.) The universe must be initiated by choice, because the natural laws of reality don't stipulate form at all, nor do they know anything individually. Form itself is calculation by an intellect, but the first forms created by the deity are particles and consist of concept energy, because God doesn't exist in any one location. Being the first entity, he doesn't consist of form, but generates all form. The primary particles created are quark-like particles that pass through other particles because they are consecutive in creation; that is, they have no particle in between to define a separation, so they are considered to be in unity. The first particles created are negative form particles, because particles are generated from the concept-realty progression," that is, a system of "law intervals"  having no end. But negative proceeds to positive, and so there are positive quarks also. I believe the total of primary quarks is a range from -8 to +8, and these join in threes to make the known particles like protons and neutrons. I know this is too much for you right now. Can you follow this? I was inspired by God in a moment of time to begin knowing these things. I have a third book out on it. I'll have to write more later.

[stromboli]

What you are saying is basically true. I have actually know these things for a long time now. Yes, the universe must be created in real time-space, since energy generated in creation cannot exist in the abstract beginning. But God the first being has existed forever, and was brought forth in the infinite beginning of the law system itself.

So God has been creating universes forever, and the beginning of them can't be found. When one universe has atrophied enough, God draws the elements back in and creates a new one. Yes, in reality there has always been form, just as there have always been created beings. God is the fullness of the law system of existence called the "concept-reality progression." He began in infinity because nothing "is not," and switched immediately to real time because negative time cannot continue.(Time is an unchangeable law called "continuance." It is not dependent on form.)

The universe must be initiated by choice, because the natural laws of reality don't stipulate form at all, nor do they know anything individually. Form itself is calculation by an intellect, but the first forms created by the deity are particles and consist of concept energy, because God doesn't exist in any one location. Being the first entity, he doesn't consist of form, but generates all form.

The primary particles created are quark-like particles that pass through other particles because they are consecutive in creation; that is, they have no particle in between to define a separation, so they are considered to be in unity. The first particles created are negative form particles, because particles are generated from the concept-realty progression," that is, a system of "law intervals"  having no end.

But negative proceeds to positive, and so there are positive quarks also. I believe the total of primary quarks is a range from -8 to +8, and these join in threes to make the known particles like protons and neutrons. I know this is too much for you right now. Can you follow this? I was inspired by God in a moment of time to begin knowing these things. I have a third book out on it. I'll have to write more later.

FIFY. They are called paragraphs. Apparently theists have all skipped third grade.

[Mike Cl]

And the Invisible Pink Unicorn is lightly chuckling and shaking her head as she reads this drivel. 

[Solomon Zorn]

After I read the whole thread, I may have more to say, but this is my response to the original post:

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

BOTH ”Always” implies the existence of time, and time began when change began. The beginning of the universe would be the beginning of time. Some people have difficulty with that concept. There was no "before" time began.

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?

”Why” is not the question. “Why implies intention. “How,” is the question.

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

Very little, since we are just little specks of life on a tiny globe in the midst of an unfathomably vast universe, and can't reproduce conditions in order to experiment. We can only use mathematical models to show what may be possible, and impossible.

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.

This is not a good syllogism, because “that which is necessary” is an obscure statement. Space is necessary, and it exists. Matter is necessary, and it exists. Energy is necessary, and it exists. Motion is necessary and it takes place. What is missing?

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.

This does not logically follow from the preceding statements.

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

The prime mover need not transcend anything. It would be the first change, but it would still, necessarily be a part of space-time.

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

Nice try.