An infinite series of finite causes.

[JimL]

But laws are not things and no it does not follow that matter and energy would be infinite too.

True, thats what I"ve been saying, the physical laws are not things, but if what you believe the physicists are saying is true, that the physical laws themselves are the eternally existing cause of a "universe from nothing" then that same universe would have emeged from this "nothing" an eternity ago.

[37818]

True, thats what I"ve been saying, the physical laws are not things, but if what you believe the physicists are saying is true, that the physical laws themselves are the eternally existing cause of a "universe from nothing" then that same universe would have emeged from this "nothing" an eternity ago.

The evidence suggests that our known universe has a finite beginning. Some 13.7 billion years ago. And those laws of physics are deemed to have come into existence with the universe.

[JimL]

The evidence suggests that our known universe has a finite beginning. Some 13.7 billion years ago. And those laws of physics are deemed to have come into existence with the universe.

You missed the point, the notion is that the physical laws exist in and of themselves in a sort of platonic realm separate and apart from the universe, that they are not descriptive of nature, but that they are the cause and directer of nature.

[seer]

True, thats what I"ve been saying, the physical laws are not things, but if what you believe the physicists are saying is true, that the physical laws themselves are the eternally existing cause of a "universe from nothing" then that same universe would have emerged from this "nothing" an eternity ago.

What? If the universe 'emerged' then it can't be past eternal. You are not making sense Jim. And if these laws exist in a Platonic sense then they are not dependent on the physical universe. But as a theist I have no problem with this, these laws existed in the mind of God before the creation of the universe.

[37818]

You missed the point, the notion is that the physical laws exist in and of themselves in a sort of platonic realm separate and apart from the universe, that they are not descriptive of nature, but that they are the cause and directer of nature.

There are some scientists which think the laws of physics could have been different.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/p...-be-explained/

[JimL]

What? If the universe 'emerged' then it can't be past eternal. You are not making sense Jim. And if these laws exist in a Platonic sense then they are not dependent on the physical universe. But as a theist I have no problem with this, these laws existed in the mind of God before the creation of the universe.

Doesn't matter. If nothingness is an eternal fact, and the physical laws are an eternal fact, and it is out of that that universes are said to come, then those universes wouldn't really be emerging at all, they would have to be as eternal as the laws and the nothingness that they are said to come from. There is no change required for this to happen, therefore its not something that "happens."

[seer]

Doesn't matter. If nothingness is an eternal fact, and the physical laws are an eternal fact, and it is out of that that universes are said to come, then those universes wouldn't really be emerging at all, they would have to be as eternal as the laws and the nothingness that they are said to come from. There is no change required for this to happen, therefore its not something that "happens."

Jim, don't argue with me, I believe in God so it not a problem for me, argue with the atheist physicists who are suggesting this.

[JimL]

Jim, don't argue with me, I believe in God so it not a problem for me, argue with the atheist physicists who are suggesting this.

I'm arguing with both you and the physicists. You're both suggesting that the Universe came from nothing, and in neither case, afaict, do your arguments hold water.

[carpedm9587]

I'm arguing with both you and the physicists. You're both suggesting that the Universe came from nothing, and in neither case, afaict, do your arguments hold water.

I cannot say I have followed this discussion from its beginning, but I know of no theists who say the universe "came from nothing." They say it came from god. If there is a supreme, all-powerful being, then it is perfectly consistent to suggest it could create a universe. The question is, does such a being exist.

Indeed, it is the atheist that either has to suggest the universe "came from nothing," or that there is something "out there," beyond our universe, that gives rise to universes. The fact is, we simply don't know how our universe came to be. If time/space begin with the beginning of our universe, we lack even a language to talk about what is "outside" our universe. Time may not apply. Space may not apply. It is part of the perennial question of why there is something instead of nothing.

Personally, I do not rush to replace "I don't know" with "god did it." History tells us that the tendency is for things previously explained by "god did it" tend to be explainable as a simple, naturalistic event (once we learn enough about our universe). So I'm good with "I don't know" until something better comes along.

The theist likewise has a similar problem. After all, the universe begins at a particular moment in time (at least our time), so what was happening before? Why did god suddenly choose to create at that moment in all eternity, and not before? Of course, the response will be, "how do we know god didn't create before? So, like us, they too have to say "I don't know." They just add one thing to the story that an atheist does not: god.

[JimL]

I cannot say I have followed this discussion from its beginning, but I know of no theists who say the universe "came from nothing." They say it came from god. If there is a supreme, all-powerful being, then it is perfectly consistent to suggest it could create a universe. The question is, does such a being exist.

Claiming that god did it is no different than saying it was created out of nothing. If god created the universe, then he created it out of nothing, or as the bible says, "he spoke it into existence."

Indeed, it is the atheist that either has to suggest the universe "came from nothing," or that there is something "out there," beyond our universe, that gives rise to universes. The fact is, we simply don't know how our universe came to be. If time/space begin with the beginning of our universe, we lack even a language to talk about what is "outside" our universe. Time may not apply. Space may not apply. It is part of the perennial question of why there is something instead of nothing.

The most reasonable answer to that question is that the Universe, that is the stuff of which it is formed, is infinite and eternal, and that there is no such thing as nothing. Why this "something" exists rather than there being nothing is another question altogether and the simple answer to that is that it is just a brute fact that the existence of "something" is just the natural order of things.

Personally, I do not rush to replace "I don't know" with "god did it." History tells us that the tendency is for things previously explained by "god did it" tend to be explainable as a simple, naturalistic event (once we learn enough about our universe). So I'm good with "I don't know" until something better comes along.

I'm good with I don't know as well, because I don't know, but I also see no good reason to posit a creator god.

The theist likewise has a similar problem. After all, the universe begins at a particular moment in time (at least our time), so what was happening before? Why did god suddenly choose to create at that moment in all eternity, and not before? Of course, the response will be, "how do we know god didn't create before? So, like us, they too have to say "I don't know." They just add one thing to the story that an atheist does not: god.

Yes, none of us can say we know with any kind of certainty, of course, but theists actually claim that they do know, and not only know, but know which particular god is the real god out of the thousands of gods there have been. But the atheist actually has good reason to refute their beliefs and not to believe in creation or god at all.

[carpedm9587]

Claiming that god did it is no different than saying it was created out of nothing. If god created the universe, then he created it out of nothing, or as the bible says, "he spoke it into existence."

I understand your perspective Jim, but "out of god's creative will" and "out of nothing" are not the same thing. I'm not defending the belief, mind you, just trying to explain it. However, I think you would be correct to say it was created out of "nothing material." God is, after all, said to be immaterial - so we have an immaterial being creating a material existence.

The most reasonable answer to that question is that the Universe, that is the stuff of which it is formed, is infinite and eternal, and that there is no such thing as nothing. Why this "something" exists rather than there being nothing is another question altogether and the simple answer to that is that it is just a brute fact that the existence of "something" is just the natural order of things.

Except that science tells us the universe began with the "Big Bang," a singularity. It gives rise to the questions, "where did the singularity come from?" If it was always in existence, then what causal force led it to explode at that particular moment? These are questions for which science has no adequate answers today, that I know of.

I'm good with I don't know as well, because I don't know, but I also see no good reason to posit a creator god.

Yes, none of us can say we know with any kind of certainty, of course, but theists actually claim that they do know, and not only know, but know which particular god is the real god out of the thousands of gods there have been. But the atheist actually has good reason to refute their beliefs and not to believe in creation or god at all.

Good reason to us - not particularly satisfying to them.

[JimL]

I understand your perspective Jim, but "out of god's creative will" and "out of nothing" are not the same thing. I'm not defending the belief, mind you, just trying to explain it. However, I think you would be correct to say it was created out of "nothing material." God is, after all, said to be immaterial - so we have an immaterial being creating a material existence.

The material world, being that no such material substance existed, whether its coming into existence be of gods will or not, would necessarily have been created out of nothing. Unless god formed the universe out of his own substance, then he created it out of nothing. However you want to look at it, if no such thing existed, and then came into existence, then puff, it magically appeared from out of nothing. That is what is meant by "created" with respect to god.

Except that science tells us the universe began with the "Big Bang," a singularity. It gives rise to the questions, "where did the singularity come from?" If it was always in existence, then what causal force led it to explode at that particular moment? These are questions for which science has no adequate answers today, that I know of.

Not really. Science only tells us that our universe, our spacetime, began to exist some 14 billion years ago, not necessarily that "the universe," or what I would call the greater cosmos, began to exist. The singularity, if that is how our universe began to exist, needn't itself have always existed, the singularity would be the result of events taking place in the greater cosmos. Something coming from something.

Good reason to us - not particularly satisfying to them.

Yes, well, there is always hope.

[JonathanL]

The theist likewise has a similar problem. After all, the universe begins at a particular moment in time (at least our time), so what was happening before? Why did god suddenly choose to create at that moment in all eternity, and not before? Of course, the response will be, "how do we know god didn't create before? So, like us, they too have to say "I don't know." They just add one thing to the story that an atheist does not: god.

This problem goes away once you realize that since time itself began existing with the creation of the universe (or at least that's the most common Christian understanding of the relationship between time and creation) it's simply nonsensical to ask why God chose to create at a specific moment in eternity and not another. The answer is that God chose to create at that specific moment in eternity because it was the only moment that existed. The passage of time didn't exist yet, so there was no way to divide eternity up in to discrete moments.

[Tassman]

Right creation from nothing, not creation from a multiverse.

No it is a complete bias. He has no idea if natural causes created this universe or how. This is not merely methodological naturalism, it is philosophical naturalism

How can "science" be working on it if it is not testable or observable?

Via inferences based upon what is known to exist. This is how science (very successfully) works.

[JimL]

This problem goes away once you realize that since time itself began existing with the creation of the universe (or at least that's the most common Christian understanding of the relationship between time and creation) it's simply nonsensical to ask why God chose to create at a specific moment in eternity and not another. The answer is that God chose to create at that specific moment in eternity because it was the only moment that existed. The passage of time didn't exist yet, so there was no way to divide eternity up in to discrete moments.

No, that idea is nonsensical. If there was no before creation, then there was no god before either. No matter how you look at it, if the universe came to be after god, then god existed before the universe, and before and after implies time.